EU Acceding States: Immigration

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be their policy towards immigration from the 10 acceding member states of the European Union and whether United Kingdom policy differs from that of other European Union countries.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, under accession treaty terms, citizens of the new EU member states will have full free movement rights for all purposes apart from work from the date of their planned accession on 1st May 2004. The treaty allows current member states to restrict freedom to work for up to seven years from accession. On 10th December 2002, the Foreign Secretary announced that these citizens will gain the same full rights to work in the UK as existing EU citizens from accession. Denmark, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden have also extended free movement for workers on accession.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that Britain is the only large state in the European Union which has not decided to retain its right to delay extending working rights to new members for seven years? While immigration may have many economic advantages, does it not have to be borne in mind in this situation: first, that the newly acceding countries are not yet receiving anything like the same amount of help as Ireland and Greece received at the time of their accession; secondly, that unemployment is much lower in this country; and, thirdly, with France, Germany and Italy restricting immigration in this way, will not Britain inevitably become the number one destination for legal immigration, just as it already is for illegal immigration?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, that is not our assessment of the situation or of the risk as described by the noble Lord. Of the large states that he mentioned, a number have not made the decision as to what they will do. The United Kingdom assessed the situation very carefully indeed. We took advice from a range of research studies, and looked at experience when Spain and Portugal joined the European Union. All of the evidence pointed to the assessment that it would be extremely surprising if there were to be a large flood of people to cause any particular problems to the United Kingdom. The reverse is the case. We expect to benefit from the migration of selected workers to meet some of the skills gaps that we presently have. Reserve measures will also be in place to protect the situation should that not turn out to be the case.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the claimed advantages for membership of the European Union is that it will assist the countries that will accede in 2004 in terms of investment to develop their own economies and to get more of their own people into work? Is it not the case that most of the economies of the present EU members face substantial labour shortages in important areas to sustain economic development?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as often, my noble friend is correct. There is clear evidence from the European Union's first phases that the extension of the free trade area has significantly benefited weaker economies. One has only to look at what has happened to the economies of Spain and Portugal during the period to see how access to wider markets, including wider freedom of labour mobility, has significantly closed the gap between their economies and others. We very much hope that the same will happen with the eastern European states as they join the European Union, and that considerable benefits to European peace and co-operation will flow from this.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, while we welcome the decision announced on 10th December and believe that an inflow of workers might well have a beneficial effect on the United Kingdom economy—and while we agree with the assessment of the benefits to the eastern European economies, which will be similar to those that accrued to other countries that joined the EU, such as Spain and Portugal—what did the Minister mean when he talked about selection of the workers who might come here? Surely anyone from the accession countries will be free to enter the United Kingdom and to take up employment, and we shall not have the ability that we may have had in the past to select those whom we want to fill particular posts.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There is no selection. I sought to indicate that there is a range of areas where we presently have serious labour shortages; for example, in hospitality, seasonal agricultural work and others. My noble friend will no doubt mark some of the shortages in healthcare. Therefore, there will be no selection process. One should also mark that, while other countries might choose to put in place phased arrangements, there is nothing stopping EU accession citizens having freedom of travel to any of those areas, irrespective. As citizens, they can come and go as they please.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, has not this Question to be looked at in the context of the almost complete collapse of immigration control during the years of this Government? Under this Government, hundreds of thousands of people have entered the country in the past few years—legally, illegally or under the guise of being asylum seekers. Why do not the Government say that another few hundred thousand from the acceding states is neither here nor there? What about the decision of Spain to admit a million people from South America? Were the British Government consulted about that? What do the Government have to say about its significance for immigration into this country?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. There is not, nor has there been, anything resembling a complete collapse of asylum policy or processes in this country. We are facing, along with many other members of the European Union, substantial pressures of illegal immigration and of people some of whom use the asylum route to seek to penetrate the United Kingdom. Without boring the House with a repetition of our debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, noble Lords will be well aware of the very serious measures that we put in place to crack down on abuses while ensuring that those who had genuine claims still had the opportunity to have a place of refuge. To summarise, we have closed Sangatte. We have put in place a range of measures in European Union ports to detect illegal entrants in lorries. We are confident that that will have a significant impact.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that, when Portugal and Greece were about to join the European Union and the same concession was opened to them, many—not least the tabloid press—expressed fear that we would be overrun by poor immigrants from those countries? Nothing like that happened. People came to where there were jobs and vacancies.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right. One understands why the Germans might be slightly more apprehensive, given the length of their border. But, our view is that there should not be a problem generally in the European Union or in the United Kingdom. Rather, benefits should flow from the changes.

Night Courts

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the system for bringing alleged offenders immediately to overnight courts is to be continued.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the final decision has yet to be made, and the evaluation report is currently being considered by the criminal justice Ministers responsible. Proposals to take forward the lessons learnt will be announced by my honourable friend Yvette Cooper in another place in the near future. However, the pilots were established to find the most cost-effective means of extending court hours, and, in the event, the night courts have proved to be disproportionately expensive while, on the other hand, the early-morning sittings were useful and need exploring further.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's reply. When the night court system was announced originally, much publicity was generated by Downing Street, so why are the Government now considering dropping it? Is it because there is no longer enough space in police station cells?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. Noble Lords will know that it was one of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld when he reviewed the modernisation of criminal justice. It was thought right that we test the market to see whether night courts were needed and how they could operate. We have now done so and are in the process of analysing the results. I have given noble Lords our provisional view on the working of night courts.

Lord Renton: My Lords, on making a decision, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that having night courts would be a costly excess of zeal and would coincide with the late opening of pubs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will certainly bear that in mind. I reassure the noble Lord that we looked carefully at cost; at whether the system was fit for the purpose and whether there was a real need for night court sittings. The pilot seemed to indicate that the utility of night courts is not justified, although, as I said, early-morning sessions have proved far more successful.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if the early-morning or night courts decide to send people with alcohol or drug problems to treatment centres rather than prison, will there be enough places for them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question about disposal on sentencing. I assure her that, before anyone is charged, their fitness to be charged is assessed. That affects how much court capacity is needed. I shall undertake to obtain a proper answer to the noble Baroness's question.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, as regards expediency, does the evaluation of the pilot scheme indicate whether quality of justice has remained the same, or has it been sacrificed for speed?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would never sacrifice quality for speed. We wanted to discover whether there was, first, a capacity need for night courts and, secondly, how it would be managed. I congratulate everyone who helped us with the pilot, including probation officers, judges and magistrates. They worked incredibly hard and enabled us to get a good pilot, which demonstrated that quality can be delivered at other times and we do not need night courts.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from any decision the Government take about the future, why was it not possible to predict that night courts would be disproportionately expensive? As the noble Baroness said, the pilot involved hard work for many people. Why could that not be foreseen?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the whole point of exploring the issues was to do just that. Lord Justice Auld recommended that the exploration should be made. Noble Lords will know that we promised not only to take Lord Justice Auld's recommendations seriously but to explore and implement them if they proved necessary. That was precisely why we took the pilot seriously. We have canvassed it fully and now we can work on the results.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, now that we know that night courts are unnecessary, what further steps do the Government plan to take to reduce the time between charge and appearance in court, especially with young offenders?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have worked hard on that. The noble Lord will know that the times have decreased dramatically. We shall continue to assess needs. I indicated that early-morning sittings are being looked at. All issues affecting young offenders will be considered.

Taiwan

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What support they are giving to Taiwan's application to join the World Health Organisation.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Taiwan's relationship to the World Health Organisation was last discussed at the World Health Assembly in May 2002. There was no consensus in the general committee for the matter to be discussed in the main assembly session. The Taiwan authorities have not informed us of the details of any application this year.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. She will know that Taiwan's application is supported by the United States Congress and the European Parliament. Is she aware that one consequence of Taiwan being denied membership as an observer is that in times of emergency, such as during the enterovirus attack, which killed 78 children on Taiwan, and the earthquake in 1999, its people are denied any help from WHO officials? That is a large gap in the network of help that the WHO is able to offer to countries. How can it be right that entities such as the PLO, the Holy See and Liechtenstein all have access to the WHO, but Taiwan, which is a stable democracy of 23 million people and a valued trading partner of this country, is denied the same access?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the countries that he mentioned have observer status to the World Health Organisation. We hope that Taiwan can submit an application that all World Health Organisation parties can accept. However, we should stress that we cannot offer a view on any possible application until it has been made and its full details are known and until we have an agreed EU common position. We have supported Taiwanese applications to international organisations in the past, such as to the WTO, which is a membership organisation not based on states. However, we could not support any application from Taiwan if statehood was a prerequisite.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, are the Government prepared to hear the case for Taiwan and its 23 million people? Surely the Government's position, which the Minister has described as being of no view, must mean that they keep an open mind. Are they doing anything actively to help put the matter of observer status on the agenda?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat that there has been no application from Taiwan this year. There was an application last year, which was not accepted by the majority of the members of the WHO. The Government's position is that we are ready to consider an application if it is made on a basis that all WHO parties can accept. Only 27 countries recognise Taiwan. The WHO is a specialist organisation of the UN.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness think of any of the attributes of a sovereign state that Taiwan lacks?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we do not recognise Taiwan. The majority of countries in the UN also do not recognise Taiwan. Therein lies the problem with respect to WHO membership.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we all appreciate that because of respect for the "one China" policy and our relations with the People's Republic of China, we do not accord Taiwan full diplomatic status. Can we at least be assured that we give Taiwan representatives in our country and the sort of causes that we are discussing in this Question the same support and encouragement as are given by our neighbours, particularly France and Germany, in their dealings with Taiwan? Are we as effective as they are in maintaining good relations with this remarkable democracy?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is an EU common position on Taiwan, to which all EU member states adhere. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are unofficial links at a number of levels. UK Ministers have visited Taiwan to discuss issues of interest. The same has happened the other way round. However, I repeat that we do not recognise Taiwan as a state.

Student Suicides

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they are doing to implement the recommendations in the report Reducing the Risk of Student Suicides.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the recommendations outlined in the report are aimed at the higher education sector as a whole and at individual higher education institutions. It is an extremely useful report. My department will encourage the NHS to offer support to higher education institutions in taking the recommendations forward.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Given the tragic loss when there is a student suicide, and the risk of copycat suicides, does the Minister feel that there should be a central database to collect data on suicides by full-time and part-time students? Data are not currently collected on part-time students. Such a database would allow the sharing of good practice. Does the Minister also agree that there should be a statutory requirement for all higher education institutions to provide student counselling services? Their provision is currently patchy in some institutions, whereas in others they are of a very high standard and have been developed with the student body as a whole.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree that there should be a statutory requirement. It is a matter for each higher education institution to consider the report and take action appropriately. The collecting of statistics is a matter for the higher education sector, although the NHS stands ready to help. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness and very much endorse Part 5 of the report about good practice on how higher education institutions should respond to student suicides and attempted suicides.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the interests of joined-up government, has the Minister considered the increased financial pressures on students foreshadowed by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently? What representations will he make to the Secretary of State?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my right honourable friend will no doubt address the issue shortly in relation to university finances. The biggest contribution that the National Health Service can make is to ensure that at local level NHS mental health services work hand in hand with higher education institutions to offer appropriate support.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister have any figures on whether finance or the lack of it for individual students figures highly among the reasons for suicide or attempted suicide?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any such evidence. Interestingly, the major reason given for student drop-outs is dissatisfaction with the course rather than the financial issues.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK, which produced the report. Does my noble friend agree that the universities are committed to tackling the problem highlighted in the report? Does he also agree that adequate support, including funding, is essential to ensure that the training of personal tutors and other staff involved becomes central to their continuing professional development?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that the training of staff is very important. Personal tutors and counselling services have a big role to play in universities. The points made in Part 4 of the report on training and awareness-raising are particularly appropriate. I commend that to individual institutions.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I have an involvement at a distance in the issue. Does the Minister agree that one problem in this sad area is that, after a suicide, the reasons remain incomprehensible to everybody involved?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an apposite point. That is why the report's recommendation encouraging the training of staff in awareness identification is so important. I understand that 80 per cent of higher education institutions have set up working groups to look at their policy in relation to mental health studies. I am sure that they will wish to examine that point and take it forward.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, what resources will the NHS dedicate to deliver the Government's national suicide prevention strategy? If the Minister cannot answer that, how can he be sure that the strategy will be delivered?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course the strategy is important, and one expects it to be funded out of the allocation given to the National Health Service. As for mental health services generally, we intend that £329 million be invested over three years to 2003-4. Since the introduction of the National Health Service Framework, there has been considerable development in our mental health services. That includes development of assertive outreach teams, counselling services, helplines and an increase in the number of spare beds.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question, as there is time? How much have suicides in further education institutions gone up in the last few years?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figures given in the Universities UK report show that in 1994-95 there were 174 full-time student deaths. That rose to 178 by 1997-98, although I do not believe that the increase is statistically significant. What it seems to show is that the number of suicides in universities is not particularly out of line with the number among young people generally. That does not mean to say that universities ought not to give particular focus to the problem.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, later this afternoon, between consideration of the Licensing Bill and the Courts Bill, my noble friend Lord Bach will repeat a Statement: Iraq, further contingency preparations.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 20,
	Schedule 1,
	Clause 21,
	Schedule 2,
	Clauses 22 to 26,
	Schedule 3,
	Clauses 27 and 28.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 157 [Orders to close premises in area experiencing disorder]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 420:
	Page 85, line 30, leave out from "disorder" to "may" in line 31 and insert "in the area of a licensing authority, the licensing authority"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group.
	The powers to close premises when there is disorder or expected disorder, or when public nuisance has been caused by noise coming from the premises, purport to be an important counterweight to the general emphasis on the grant of all applications come what may. However, as drafted, the provisions in relation to closure are limited and not exercisable by the authority best placed to determine whether the power should be exercised—namely, the licensing authority.
	The amendments to Clause 157 would allow the licensing authority to make an order requiring premises to be closed for a period not exceeding 24 hours on the application of the police rather than the magistrates' court. The role of the magistrates' court should be to deal with appeals against such an order.
	The amendments are consistent with the existing provisions in relation to the misuse of drugs in premises licensed for public entertainment. Under those provisions, the police may request a licensing authority to suspend a public entertainment licence when it is necessary to prevent the misuse of drugs on licensed premises. Those provisions have operated and worked well in Westminster, where collaboration between police and the city council under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been excellent. Were the framers of the Bill aware of that productive collaboration when they drafted it? Westminster is not under such tight control as to crime that we can jettison effective methodologies.
	Amendments Nos. 421 and 422 are consequential on what I have just said.
	Amendments Nos. 423 and 424 to Clause 158 would permit the licensing authority, as well as the police, to exercise the powers to make a closure order for identified premises. As the power to make a closure order is exercisable in the interests of public safety or because closure is necessary to prevent a noise nuisance, the licensing authority is the more logical authority.
	On Amendments Nos. 425 and 427, along with Amendments 423 and 424, it is not clear whether the police are the appropriate party to deal with noisy premises. It would be better for the local authority, with its infrastructure in place in this respect, to take on responsibility and for the police to focus their resources on serious crime. I emphasise the difficulties that the police have in dealing with crime in inner London simply because of shortage of resources. When the job could sensibly be done by others, it would be a sensible economy. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I am not aware of the particular circumstances in Westminster to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, refers, but I shall inform myself of them. If there is anything that I need to write to him about, I shall certainly do so.
	There seems to be an element of misunderstanding about the nature of these closure provisions. Clause 157 provides:
	"Where there is or is expected to be disorder in any petty sessions area, a magistrates' court . . . [on the application of a police officer who is of the rank of superintendent or above] . . . may make an order requiring all premises—
	(a) which are situated at or near the place of the disorder . . . and
	(b) in respect of which a premises licence or a temporary event notice has effect,
	to be closed for a period, not exceeding 24 hours".
	Clause 158 allows a senior police officer to make a closure order when he believes that there is likely to be disorder,
	"on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises"—
	that is, a single premises—
	" . . . in the interests of public safety".
	A similar order can be made in the case of noise nuisance.
	Amendments Nos. 420 to 422 to Clause 157 would transfer the power to require the closure of all licensed premises in a particular area from the magistrates' court to the licensing authority. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that the restriction on the powers of the licensing authority was undesirable. The courts have similar powers now, under the Licensing Act 1964, although that Act uses the delightful phrase, "riot and tumult". It is a significant power, but not one that is used often. Recently, it has invariably been used in response to concerns about the behaviour of fans attending football matches.
	I put it to the Committee that there are good reasons why the Bill should leave this power with the magistrates' court rather than transfer it to the licensing authority. First, although a closure order could be made in advance, it is designed to be made in an emergency. The police and local authority might be aware that a demonstration is taking place some weeks before and be content with arrangements for it. They might then get intelligence on the day before the event; for example, that a particular group known for causing trouble intends to turn up and cause trouble. To decrease the risk of crime and disorder, they decide that a closure order should apply to premises in the vicinity of the demonstration route. If the magistrates' court believes that a strong enough case has been made, it can sit in emergency session to provide the police with that closure power at short notice. A licensing authority would not be able to do that, so there could be a failure to deal with disorder of which there is intelligence in advance.
	Secondly, we have to recognise that an order of this kind restricts people's freedom. Those running licensed premises on the route of a demonstration will almost certainly be free of blame themselves. It will be no fault of theirs that the police judge that there is a risk of disorder, but they could suffer financially from it. It could have serious consequences for innocent people. These powers should therefore rest with the court rather than with the licensing authority.
	Amendments Nos. 423 to 425 and 427, in Clause 158, would allow the licensing authorities as well as the police to order the closure of a particular premises where there are concerns about disorder or noise nuisance. These powers simply carry on from the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which amended the 1964 Act. These are reactive powers designed to allow the control of disorder or nuisance. The police will have to think about the likely reaction of customers and where they are going to go to. If, for example, there were football fans from two clubs, the police might decide that, rather than close the premises, they should remove the fans of one of the clubs and leave their opponents there. However, that is a decision that can be made only by a senior police officer. It is difficult to see how a licensing authority can make that type of operational decision. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am most grateful to the Minister for his graciousness in saying that he would look at the particular co-operation between Westminster and the police to which I referred. I acknowledge that I was speaking primarily about crime and drugs, an ever-present problem in central London, rather more than about the type of disorder to which he was alluding—perfectly properly in the circumstances—in his response. He has been gracious enough to say that he will look at what I said about Westminster's collaboration with the police. It would be ungracious of me not to say in return that I shall look closely at what he said in reply. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 421 and 422 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 157 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Monson: Is it not the case that the obligation to close will apply automatically to all licensed premises in the area in question, including hotels, so that if there were expected to be a very serious and dangerous demonstration in Piccadilly, for example, the Ritz and the Meridien and so on would be forced to close in addition to ordinary pubs? If I am wrong in this, perhaps the Minister will reassure me on the point.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It sounds like a very good idea to me. However, I cannot think that it is as simple as that. It is up to the police to determine what would be the scope of this power under Clause 157. I think that the definition of "at or near the place of the disorder" could safely be left to the judgment of the police who are in operational charge at the time.

Clause 157 agreed to.
	Clause 158 [Closure orders for identified premises]:
	[Amendments Nos. 423 to 425 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 426:
	Page 86, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) specify whether the premises must close in its entirety or simply cease the sale of alcohol."

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 426, I shall be touching on a very similar point to that just raised on Clause 157 by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Amendment No. 426 raises a particularly significant issue. Subsection (4) of Clause 158 states the specifications that must be included in a closure order: the premises to which it relates, the period for which the premises should be closed, the grounds for the closure, and the effects of it. Amendment No. 426 provides an extra specification and is aimed specifically at accommodating supermarkets.
	Although it is commendable to amalgamate the current numerous licences into one piece of legislation, I have yet to be persuaded of the effectiveness of this approach. Surely flexibility is the key. If the Bill must cover both the on and the off trade, it needs to ensure that the rules are able to vary in response to the different situations faced by, for example, a Tesco store and an inner-city nightclub.
	Closure orders are a pertinent example. A supermarket sells alcohol. Therefore, it could be subject to a closure order under the Bill. Yet, it seems absurd that, whatever the reasons for the suspension of the sale of alcohol, the supermarket could not continue selling anything else but would have to shut down entirely. With the closure of a premises comes the attendant loss of revenue, not to mention, in the specific case of a supermarket, the inconvenience for those relying on the store for their daily needs. Supermarkets receive precious little concession in the Bill. I ask only that we appreciate the need to acknowledge and respond to the off trade. I beg to move.

Lord Williamson of Horton: In rising to support the amendment, I make my customary declaration of interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. It is important to bear in mind that we are considering a variety of different premises—not only the supermarkets, but a whole range of restaurants which may have only a small sale of alcohol. Indeed, at a good many pubs in the country, the sale of food is more important than the sale of alcohol. If, as seems likely in most cases, the closure orders result from problems arising from the misuse of alcohol, it is important that the closure order should state whether it applies to the whole premises or only to those concerned with the sale of alcohol. That would not only give a certain amount of flexibility, but meet the problem outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In my view, it would also make the whole proposal more logical and more suited to the actual circumstances. This is perhaps not the most important amendment before us. If we were allowed to give it a title, this might be called "the pub with no beer" amendment. None the less, I think that it is necessary to take account of the very different circumstances and not to get ourselves in the situation of thinking that we are dealing only with alcohol-selling pubs.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When I first looked at Amendment No. 426, I was rather attracted to it. Although I was not aware at the time that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was going to refer particularly to supermarkets, I thought that the idea of allowing, for example, a play to continue in a theatre while closing the bar was quite attractive. Then, however, I looked at what Clause 158 provides and I was persuaded that the amendment was not necessary.
	Clause 158 provides that a senior officer can make a closure order in respect of a premises if he believes either that there is, or is likely to be,
	"disorder on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises",
	which is much more limited than just "the area"; it means "just around"—or that,
	"a public nuisance is being caused by noise",
	emanating from the premises.
	This power has existed for licensed premises, particularly for those selling alcohol, since implementation of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The police have found the power very useful as a deterrent although closure orders have been issued on only a handful of occasions. It is possible that a crowd who were inclined to disorder or to making sufficient noise to constitute a public nuisance would be more of a threat if they were allowed to remain together but prevented buying alcohol at a place where they would normally expect to do so. So, if the circumstances are sufficiently serious to require the issuing of a closure order, then, subject to the views of the police, the normal practice must be to close the premises and disperse the crowd. That is what Clause 158 provides.
	Let us consider the situation of supermarkets. Is it really likely that there are circumstances in which the police would be able to impose a closure order on premises of that nature as a result of disturbance or disorder emanating directly from those premises? I cannot imagine it. The only such circumstances I can think of are where a crowd of looters are on supermarket premises as a result of an event happening elsewhere. Under those circumstances surely it is right to close the premises completely rather than merely to stop selling alcohol.
	I understand the motivation behind the amendment but when one considers the circumstances in which it is likely to be used I do not think that it will apply to supermarkets except in the very extreme circumstances when the provisions of the Bill should apply.

Lord Avebury: When the Government have used the term "the vicinity of" in previous amendments they have been unable to give us any definition except, as the noble Lord has done today, by saying that it is smaller than a locality. Can he give us some practical examples? If one takes, for example, the area between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square—with which many of us are familiar—would the vicinity of establishments there embrace the whole of Leicester Square and the streets which lead out of Leicester Square towards Soho? It would help the Committee to have some idea of the dimensions of the vicinity.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But the Bill does not just use the term "vicinity". It states,
	"in the vicinity of and related to, the premises".
	Therefore, it is clear that the vicinity would include the car park or the pub garden rather than the areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. He is probably right that the circumstances in which the measure we are discussing could be used would be fairly extreme. That said, in extreme cases there may be a problem in relation to the selling of alcohol. If a large supermarket that is almost the size of a hypermarket is affected, it may seem unnecessary to close the entire premises. However, I appreciate that such a possibility is unlikely.
	It is good to have this debate. The amendment indicates the broad spectrum of premises licences that will be affected by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, we are discussing hotels and all different kinds of premises. Much of our debate to date has focused on the pub trade as opposed to off trade. It has been worth airing this matter. I shall revert to those involved in the supermarket trade who have held discussions with us to ensure that they are happy with the Minister's response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 427 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 158 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Monson: Before we leave Clause 158, will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, assure us that subsection (3) provides adequate protection for a licensee who does everything in his power to run an orderly pub but is overwhelmed by circumstances totally beyond his control? For example, he may be the victim of a vendetta. A business rival or someone else with a grudge against him could telephone the police anonymously every Saturday morning and say, "I hear that there will be a big riot tonight at the Horse and Hounds", or suggest something similar. The police would close down the premises and the licensee would lose a tremendous amount of business. However, the fault would lie entirely with someone else. The licensee would not be to blame. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can assure me that subsection (3) provides adequate protection to a licensee under such circumstances, I should be very grateful.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly agree that subsection (3) is written in legislative language—what you might call hieratic rather than demotic speech. However, if I am wrong about its meaning, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. But I am sure that I understand exactly what it means.

Clause 158 agreed to.
	Clauses 159 to 163 agreed to.
	Clause 164 [Review of premises licence following closure order]:

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 427A:
	Page 89, line 31, at beginning insert "Upon the application of either the responsible senior police officer or the holder of the premises licence"

Lord Redesdale: This is a short and simple probing amendment. We seek to test the Government's opinion on subsection (2) of Clause 164. We should like to insert at the beginning of subsection (2) the words,
	"Upon the application of either the responsible senior police officer or the holder of the premises licence".
	As I say, the purpose of the amendment is to test the Government's thinking as regards who would initiate a review of the premises licence. At present subsection (2) states:
	"The relevant licensing authority must review the premises licence".
	It gives no indication of the circumstances under which such a review would be initiated. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can help. Under the Bill as it stands there is a straightforward sequence of events. The police make a closure order. The appropriate magistrates' court then considers the order and any extension of it. The court has to decide whether the closure order should be revoked, whether the premises should stay closed—in other words, the order should be confirmed—until the authority has reviewed its licence order, or make a similar order unless specified conditions are satisfied. The court could state that the premises should stay closed or could open subject to certain conditions. In either of those cases the authority has to carry out a review.
	The point of the review is to decide, in the light of the circumstances which gave rise to the closure order in the first place and any other relevant history, whether the authority needs to take any action in relation to the licence; for example, by adding a condition relating to door supervision or by revoking it. The review will not just consider the circumstances which gave rise to the closure on a single night. The review may look at the history of the licence since it was issued and consider any matter which is relevant to the promotion of the licensing objectives. There may have been a steady build-up of problems which came to a head on the night of the closure. Those would be important considerations for the licensing authority and the matters should be addressed whether or not the police or the licence holder want them to be. The licensing authority's role is to promote the licensing objectives.
	If the court decides that the premises should stay closed for the time being, the licence holder will, of course, want the authority to carry out a review. The effect of the Bill is that the premises will stay closed until such a review has taken place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will consider that that is right. I also acknowledge that, if the police have concerns about the continuation of the licence as it stood before the closure order was made—in other words, if there are more long-standing problems—they too will want the authority to review that licence. But I do not think that that adds up to a case for accepting this amendment. Indeed, I do not think that that was the intention. If taken literally, the amendment would add to the bureaucracy of the licensing scheme. Under the Bill as drafted the authority has to undertake a review and reach a decision on the licence within 28 days. Under the amendment, someone has to write an extra letter seeking a review. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory.

Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I accept his definition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 164 agreed to.
	Clauses 165 to 168 agreed to.
	Clause 169 [Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 428:
	Page 93, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) Where the local licensing authority considers that a period ("the celebration period") marks an occasion of exceptional local significance, it may make a licensing hours order."

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Clause 169 permits a relaxation of opening hours only by the Secretary of State. Where such relaxation is justified by an occasion of exceptional local significance, the amendment argues that the power should be exercisable by the local authority as the licensing authority.
	I should like to give an example local to my own experience. My wife and I live within three miles of the tallest maypole in the country. The village in vicinity celebrates that record on May Day. Alcohol always enlivens the dancing, which in that particular context goes back centuries. I do not suggest that we are given to Saturnalia in rural Wiltshire, but it is a proper celebration. It is an annual event, so it is not exceptional in terms of chronology, but it will be exceptional until some other village or community erects a taller maypole.
	I realise that, as with New Year, the annual nature of the event might give rise to an annual dispensation, but in other regards it seems that such a matter could frankly be left to the local authority. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I rise to support the amendment, as it gives a degree of flexibility for a very local event.

Baroness Buscombe: I also rise to support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The amendment has been presented with the noble Lord's customary affability. I recognise the strength of the case, but we seek to resist the amendment.
	I think that the noble Lord's illustration applies to a place of fairly modest population. The likelihood is that, across the length and breadth of our country, a very large number of small local communities have good cause for celebration at least once a year. On a range of occasions not as frequent as once a year, local opinion may feel that a celebration merits an extension of the licence. The result would be very significant inconsistencies across the country, in terms of the application of licensing hours orders. As the noble Lord clearly recognised, the clause already provides that the Secretary of State can make allowance for an exceptional event in a locality.
	Although the main thrust of the Bill is deregulatory, it is important to maintain some consistency in the way in which licensing authorities administer the new regime. Despite the noble Lord's strong presentation of the case, we feel that there is sufficient flexibility in how the Secretary of State operates dispensation for local celebrations of significance.
	The key point is that Parliament must always have to approve some relaxations, because the order may be made only by an affirmative resolution. Relaxing hours in London would raise significant issues for the Metropolitan Police. Therefore, we think that the proper forum for such decisions is Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the strength of that case.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply. Curiously, the note that he read out at the end of his speech—it was delivered to him during the course of it—appeared to belie the rest of his answer. The previous stance, which he adopted until dispatches arrived from elsewhere in the Chamber, implied that there were any number of events of particular local significance and that it would be quite wrong to take the privilege of looking after them away from the Secretary of State. The Minister did not use precisely those words, and produced other arguments in relation to that point. He now tells us that any such order actually requires endorsement by Parliament.
	If that is the case, the Minister has reinforced our argument. It would seem extraordinary if every event such as that involving the maypole that I described required an order. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, indicated that the problem would apply to many other small local events, but the Minister himself corroborated that parliamentary action would be required on every occasion.
	Before I agree to withdraw the amendment, it would be prudent to give the Minister a second chance to respond when he has got his ducks in a row, which happens to be peculiarly apposite in relation to my maypole example.

Lord Davies of Oldham: How could I resist such an invitation? However, I am a cricketer, so getting ducks in a row is not always as attractive to me in those terms as it is in terms of shooting.
	Let me re-emphasise what I sought to point out in my earlier argument. I commented on the small population of the area to which the noble Lord made reference. He also said that an annual dispensation might be required. We are talking about a limited community, and we have a very large number of limited communities across the country. If the amendment were agreed to, the dispensations that would go on would be legion. They would be such as to transform the nature of the Bill. For that reason, I sought to emphasise that we needed some consistency across the country.
	I also emphasised that such consistency would be subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, and an affirmative order would be required for emendations to the Bill. The House will have seen such orders on the likes of New Year's Day and, of course, last year's Golden Jubilee. They are exceptional circumstances. That is the position at present, which I am seeking to sustain within the framework of the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise for pressing the Minister further. Is he saying, as I could readily understand, that the parliamentary order would apply only if something was an annual event such as New Year or May Day? Would it apply to all the cases of exceptional local significance? I think the sensible thing for me to do is to wait for an answer, and then respond.

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, what I am indicating is that we think that exceptional occasions across the country will be few and far between. The noble Lord will recognise that the instances that I gave are the only two that I could bring to my mind from last year. Orders appear before the House each year in relation to, I think, the extension of licences at the New Year's celebration. On all other occasions and in all other circumstances, the existing licensing laws apply. Although the Bill is of course deregulatory—it devolves a great deal to the local licensing authorities—we suggest that extensions should properly be reserved to the Secretary of State.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I think that we have teased out during the course of the short debate the fact that the Secretary of State will be extremely severe in terms of the number of exceptional local celebrations that he is prepared to allow.
	I acknowledge that there is an argument in favour of the case that the Minister made. He would obviously wish to limit the number of cases with which his civil servants have to deal. Members of the Committee who can recall the St Trinian's films will remember the cameo performance by Richard Wattis as a civil servant in the then Ministry of Education, dealing with complaints about St Trinian's. If the provision were extended across the country, the life of a whole host of civil servants would be rendered disagreeable in the way that his character's patently was.
	Although it is not for me to comment if the Government choose to be extremely tight and restrictive in terms of events of such local significance, we have had a decent opportunity to debate the issue back and forth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 429:
	Page 93, line 42, after "licences" insert "and club premises certificates"

Lord Davies of Oldham: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 430 and 431.
	Amendment No. 429 amends Clause 169 so that it applies, as of course it should, to club premises certificates as well as to premises licences. That would allow clubs as well as other licensed premises to take advantage of any relaxation of opening hours for special occasions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 430 and 431:
	Page 94, line 7, leave out ", in relation to a premises licence, means" and insert "means—
	(a) in relation to a premises licence," Page 94, line 9, at end insert ", and
	(b) in relation to a club premises certificate, the times during which the premises may be used for qualifying club activities in accordance with the certificate"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 169, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 170 [Activities in certain locations not licensable]:
	[Amendment No. 431A not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 431B:
	Page 94, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) at premises in respect of which a licence under the Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65) is in force and the premises are being used wholly or mainly for the purposes of gaming to which Part 2 of that Act applies,"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 448A.
	The amendments relate to a concern—it is really a technicality—about casino and bingo clubs. We believe that the concern would be overcome by the amendments, which seek to avoid duplication and contradiction arising from the creation of a separate licensing system for casino and bingo clubs in the Licensing Bill and the proposed gambling Bill.
	Casinos and bingo clubs have always been subject to separate but complementary regulations from other places of entertainment. Gambling regulations are intended to prevail over other regulations where they apply to casinos and bingo clubs. It is for precisely that reason, for example, that the British Casino Association succeeded in obtaining an exemption for casino and bingo club staff from the Private Security Industry Act 2001, very late in the day. The exemption was not granted to leave staff outside the law; it was simply realised by the Government, after discussions with the gaming industry, that they were already covered by tighter legislation under existing gaming law.
	The Government have signalled their intention to maintain that separate and distinct but complementary regime for casinos and bingo clubs by proposing a new gambling Bill, which we understand is scheduled to be introduced in the 2003-04 Session and which has been widely consulted on. Given that the gambling Bill will introduce a new licensing regime for casinos and bingo clubs, it appears appropriate at this stage to exempt casinos and bingo clubs from the proposals for liquor premises licences under the Licensing Bill to avoid the possibility that casinos and bingo clubs will have to reapply for licences under two different regimes, or that the Licensing Bill will have to be amended at a later stage to accommodate the demands of the gambling Bill.
	Introducing some minor amendments to the Gaming Act 1968 would allow for the continued regulation of all activities in bingo clubs and casinos under existing gaming legislation, by virtue of the grant and annual renewal of gaming licences, until such time as the new gambling Bill comes into force.
	The Government have already accepted that it is now proposed that existing liquor licences for all establishments selling alcohol will "roll over" to the new regime in April 2004, without the need for fresh applications. Thus, the Government clearly recognise the need to avoid duplication where possible. As the Licensing Bill is presently drafted, therefore, casinos and bingo clubs will, we believe, be the only organisations that will have to bear the cost of applying for duplicate liquor and gaming premises licences. One of the objectives of the Bill, as we know, is to reduce the financial burden on industry and streamline the licensing process, but in the case of the gambling industry it will achieve exactly the opposite. In so far as casinos and bingo clubs are concerned, that is a clear case of over-regulation where it is not necessary. Indeed, it is contradictory and will lead to confusion and conflict. The Government's thinking, so far as casinos and bingo clubs are concerned, is clear, as set out in the White Paper on gambling reform, A Safe Bet for Success. That report states:
	"The government does, however, accept that it would not be appropriate to give local authorities unfettered discretion to determine whether or not a premises licence should be issued or on the conditions attached to licences ... The government agrees ... there will be a need for clear statutory criteria against which all premises licensing decisions should be made".
	Clearly, therefore, the Government have anticipated that casinos and bingo clubs will be subject to specific statutory guidance under the gambling Bill when it comes to consideration of their licences. It would therefore be very odd for the Government to set down one set of guidelines for all licensed premises from the moment that the Licensing Bill passes, only to change it for casinos and bingo clubs once the gambling Bill passes.
	In practical terms, that means that the gaming industry would face the following situation: first, existing liquor licences would be "rolled over", pending the gambling Bill; secondly, new licences for new premises or for redevelopment would be granted by local authorities under the licensing legislation; thirdly, identical casinos and bingo clubs will therefore operate under different licensing criteria depending on whether their licence was granted before the Licensing Bill or after it; and, fourthly, new premises applications would have to be re-submitted once statutory criteria are laid down in the gambling Bill, which means that the original application has in essence to be made for a second time.
	In Scotland, we are already experiencing the effects of a "dual regime", where local authorities seek to attach conditions to liquor licences that conflict with gaming legislation and the statutory advice of the Gaming Board. We could therefore have a position in England and Wales where local authorities exercise discretion during the interregnum between the Licensing Bill, once it has been enacted, and the gambling Act, in direct contravention of existing gambling legislation.
	A solution would be to make some simple amendments to the existing Gaming Act 1968, by way of the current Bill, to permit all activities conducted in casinos and bingo clubs to be controlled under the current gaming legislation, until such time as the gambling Bill is passed.
	It is worth noting that an almost identical amendment was put through Parliament this year to allow casinos to offer live entertainment. The regulation of such entertainment is now therefore governed by the gaming licence for the premises under the Gaming Act 1968. An example of a similar practice exists in relation to the Casino Act of the Isle of Man, which, by Section 8, authorises the licensing authority—the Isle of Man Gaming Board of Control—to grant a liquor licence to the holder of a casino licence. By contrast, other licensed premises in the Isle of Man—or should that be "on the Isle of Man"?—are required to obtain their liquor licences from the licensing court chaired by the high bailiff. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: We support the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: The amendments in some respects anticipate the gaming Bill and the noble Baroness will not be surprised when I tell her that I can give no firm commitment about when that Bill will be introduced.
	Once local authorities are responsible for licensing premises in their areas—not just as the licensing authority for alcohol, entertainment and late-night refreshment but also for gambling—in principle, it certainly makes sense to envisage a single licensing procedure for casinos and bingo clubs. We envisage that the licensing committees which will be set up under the Bill would in due course be empowered also to deal with gambling licensing matters. Bingo clubs and casinos would therefore be able to make one application to one body. Such a streamlining of the present arrangements could bring about substantial savings for business, and also for the police, local residents and others with an interest. However, it would be wrong to pre-empt the future reform of gambling licensing through piecemeal provision in advance of a full and detailed consideration and proper debates in this House and another place about what will be appropriate for that future position.
	I am afraid that the amendments would be a rather unsatisfactory short-cut to that future position. In the first place, the amendments would leave the magistrates with responsibility for alcohol licensing in relation to one group of premises, when they would no longer have it for any other group. Therefore, we would need administrative systems and expertise would have to be maintained for that purpose. Magistrates would have to acquire a new responsibility in relation to entertainment licensing which they might eventually have to relinquish to local authorities.
	We cannot treat licensing functions as a kind of "ping-pong" between magistrates and local authorities. That would be unfortunate. Worse than that, the provisions of the Licensing Bill would not apply and thus the criteria and safeguards that we have spent such a long time debating would not extend to bingo clubs and casinos. If the amendments were made to the Bill, the provision of licensable activities in those clubs would not benefit from the in-built protections in the Bill of expert scrutiny and representation but would, in effect, be at the magistrates' discretion. If that was no longer considered the right approach in licensing all other premises, why should it be so for bingo clubs and casinos?
	The Government readily acknowledge the case that the noble Baroness made for rationalising licensing responsibilities but we believe that it needs to be done properly. The amendments do only half a job and therefore we cannot support them. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 431B.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply. I believe that the immediate response from the gaming industry will be that the Bill does only half the job. I hear that the Minister is unable to confirm and give reassurances today that there will be a gaming Bill. But there appears to be every probability of such a Bill and certainly that industry hopes very much that it will appear in the next Session.
	I believe it fair to say that the Bill we are currently debating puts the gaming industry in a difficult position—that of being between a rock and a hard place. Without the amendments, the industry will be subjected to a dual regime. Some 850 individual premises will be involved and therefore the issue is not negligible. It should be stressed that, by exempting casinos and bingo clubs, the Government would not be leaving other establishments, such as, for example, pubs with fruit machines, outside the law. With great respect, I do not believe that it is a good argument to say that that would be the only group remaining to be reviewed in terms of licensing applications by the magistrates' courts. Magistrates' courts will have to be maintained in order to hear appeals from all other licensed premises. Indeed, because of the current system, magistrates' courts are already blessed with people who are entirely competent, able and, I am sure, perfectly willing to carry out their current role in relation to all licensing applications.
	I do not want to detain the Committee but I believe that the Minister's response will prove disappointing to the gaming industry—that is, to those involved with casinos and bingo clubs. I shall talk to them further and gauge their response to the Minister's reply. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 170 agreed to.
	Clause 171 agreed to.
	Clause 172 [Exemption for raffle, tombola, etc.]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 432:
	Page 95, line 41, after first "prize" insert "in excess of £100, or the total of all money prizes exceeds £250,"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: In moving Amendment No. 432, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 433. These are innocent little amendments, designed to carry out the wish and will of the Government in a way that I hope and believe is fairly inoffensive. As the Committee will see, they relate to the exemption for raffles and tombolas. Clause 172 is already constructed to have within it protections against misuse of the probing amendments that I am putting forward because a raffle must be promoted as an incident of the exempt entertainment.
	In responding, perhaps the Minister can cast more light on what is meant by the phrase "incident of an exempt entertainment". For example, if a rugby club holds a dance and, arising from that knees-up and in order to raise substantial funds for the club, it decides to have a raffle which will be drawn at the dance, would that raffle, even though it was extensive, be an incident of an exempt entertainment?
	Whereas in the old days raffles were homespun affairs with the tickets often sold entirely at the fete, match or lecture, these days that is rarely the case. That is partly due to the fact that our communities are now far more dispersed. One cannot rely on people being at an event when the tickets are sold and one wants to tap other sources of sale. Without the amendments I propose or ones that strike at the same problem, the exemption here will be less useful than the Government may believe.
	Therefore, as the Committee will see, in Amendment No. 432 I say that if there are money prizes, which would normally be sufficient to knock a raffle out of the exemption, the exemption will apply if those prizes are not more than £100 for any single prize or £250 in total. Those figures are perhaps too large, but noble Lords will see the point. If there is a single money prize of £5—I know of several raffles with small money prizes—one is sunk and has to enter the whole business of obtaining a licence, giving temporary notice to the police and the licensing authorities, filling in a questionnaire and doing so 10 working days before the event—all the regulatory burden that causes a headache for small organisations.
	The second amendment is designed to overcome the problem to which I have just referred; that is, unless every single ticket at a raffle is sold at the event, again, one is taken out of the exemption. I put it to the Committee that these days there are extraordinarily few raffles of any kind where a few tickets are not sold beyond the portals. Indeed, the opposite is true for several of them because they aim to raise money for charity. I hope that that is sufficient to explain the purport of the two amendments and I hope that the Government will smile upon them. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: We support the amendments. The sums referred to in Amendment No. 432 are very modest. We should be interested to hear from the Minister the rationale for a complete ban on money prizes. If the Minister opposes the amendment, what detrimental effect could these modest money prizes have on the licensing objectives? We question whether it can seriously be argued that such modest money prizes would in some way be detrimental to the licensing objectives.
	We support Amendment No. 433 because there must be many functions where a raffle is held and where raffle tickets are sold before the function takes place. There will also be events when tickets are sold at the function but when the result is announced on another occasion. Surely, that is irrelevant as regards the promotion of the licensing objectives if the raffle or lottery is a relatively modest one. If the expenses of the lottery are less than £2,000, I should have thought that that could be regarded as modest. Such a raffle or lottery is hardly likely to offend against the licensing objectives.

Lord Monson: I, too, believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has made a very good case for the amendments. As he said, the amounts could possibly be reduced slightly. I am not sure about that, but I hope that he will stick to his guns and, if he gets no satisfaction today, return to the matter at the next stage.

Baroness Blackstone: Under the existing law, the provision of alcohol as a prize in a raffle at a village fete constitutes a sale and, for that reason, an occasional licence is required. The Government recognise that that is a silly position and that is why this exemption has been introduced.
	However, in introducing it, it is necessary to ensure that certain conditions are fulfilled in order for the exemption to apply. The alcohol offered must, for instance, be in sealed containers in order to prevent unscrupulous individuals or clubs from running raffles where every prize might consist of a pint of beer and in that way get round the normal requirements for a licence to sell alcohol.
	Inevitably, we have had to define what is a small lottery or raffle and what should be properly within the normal law. In doing that we have tried to be consistent with the existing law covering lotteries and not to introduce anomalies. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 defines "small lotteries" incidental to bazaars, sales of work, fetes, dinners, dances, sporting and athletic events and other entertainments of a similar nature.
	It goes on to establish certain parameters, which include that no money prize be offered. If money prizes are offered, the lottery would be unlawful unless it meets the general provisions of the 1976 Act and one of the permissions available under that Act can be granted. I think that there would have to be a lottery permit.
	For the sake of consistency, we have adopted those criteria as the characteristics of a small lottery. Charities are aware of those rules and tailor their lotteries to meet the criteria. For that reason I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, thinks that money prizes are still offered for those kinds of events or raffles. It makes sense to mirror the lottery rules in the Bill. The Bill should not be a back door way of circumventing the requirements of the 1976 Act.
	The first of the amendments would allow the exemption to apply even where cash prizes are available. Admittedly the sums are not very high; I accept that they are modest. Nevertheless, in the light of what I have said I am surprised that raffles and tombolas still provide cash prizes.
	On the face of it, the amendment does not seem unreasonable in that it allows the offering of alcohol and cash prizes with no requirement for a licence under the system. However, I stress that the purpose of the exemption is to benefit small events such as village fetes and charity fundraisers. As I have explained, conflicting exemptions under different provisions in different laws could produce confusion.
	The second amendment provides that a lottery could benefit from the exemption even where tickets were sold or issued or the result declared other than at the appropriate premises so long as the total expenses incurred did not exceed £2,000. My objection to the amendment is on similar grounds to the first. The requirements reflect the requirements of gaming law, and to amend them would lead to confusion. The issuing of tickets and declaration of the result must take place at the same premises as the entertainment in order to ensure that only the small events of which I have spoken are included. I believe that the example of the rugby club mentioned by the noble Lord would be caught. Larger lotteries, including those where tickets are sold prior to the event, should be caught.
	Furthermore, £2,000 might pay for the supply of a considerable amount of alcohol if the exemption was misused by unscrupulous people to get round the licensing system.
	In my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, following Second Reading, I promised that I would check that the Bill did not conflict with provisions in gaming legislation. I hope that he will now be assured that it does not but that his amendments would result in such a conflict.
	I see no reason why the conditions that the amendment seeks to remove should cause concern to any of the many charities and individuals which have written to my department on this subject in recent months. I do not believe that any have written about this issue. In the light of my comments and my explanation as to why we have set the proposals for raffles and tombolas in the way we have, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply. I confess, although one should not, that I was rather persuaded by her comments on Amendment No. 432, and shall take them away and carefully read them.
	The reason the Minister has not received many letters regarding Amendment No. 433 may be that if the general public took as long as me to understand Clause 172, they might still be pondering it. It contains a triple negative, which is not quite a record for legislation but is pretty good going. Indeed, I was touched by her concern for the confusion which might result from the amendments being accepted, given that the whole world is in a state of abject confusion about such matters now, let alone with Clause 172 included. The noble Baroness may reflect on the effect of Amendment No. 433; I certainly shall. If she sends her officials on to the highways and byways she will find that a great many such raffles are now being held as part of the existing law with sales outside and beyond the event at which prizes are announced. However, reflection is a good habit, and that I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 433 not moved.]
	Clause 172 agreed to.
	Clause 173 [Prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages etc.]:

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 434:
	Page 96, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendments Nos. 434 to 436 relate to Clause 173, which prohibits the sale of alcohol at service areas, garages, and so forth. I have no problem with the prohibition of alcohol sales at motorway service areas. However, I have concerns about the wider implication for the garage ban. Bearing in mind that the Government have repeatedly stated that this is a deregulatory Bill, this provision increases regulation. It shows an unfair and unnecessary bias against small, independent businesses.
	Local shopping facilities are under pressure. All political parties accept that, agree with it and believe that that is a shame. The village shop is under pressure from the local supermarket. The local post office is under pressure because of the ending of benefit payments through post offices. The petrol station is under pressure because of the pitiful margins on the sale of petrol, and the garage is under pressure because modern technology means that new units are replaced rather than repaired. The decline of all that has led to what is called by the Social Exclusion Unit "shopping deserts".
	In order to survive, as many as possible of such functions need to be combined together to provide an economic unit, which would include the ability to sell alcohol. It is because of that that many forecourt stores have emerged in the past 10 years.
	What can be the argument against allowing garages with shops attached to sell alcohol? There can be really only one; that is, that it increases the likelihood of drinking and driving. However, that is so marginal as to be irrelevant. If we consider the reality, who goes to a garage to buy a bottle of alcohol and then sits in his or her car and drinks it? What happens is that they might go home, in which case they can do what they like, or they might go on to a party. If they become inebriated at a party, they would probably do so whether or not they bought a bottle at their local garage. Furthermore, practically, there has been no evidence of an increase in this problem since the law permitted a wider range of alcohol sales in forecourt stores in the 1990s.
	There are two further aspects to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. What is the logic of enabling an off licence to be set up in a village street 25 yards away from the village garage? As far as I can see, that could happen under these proposals. The result will be that one will have two shopping units in the village and probably both will be forced to close because they are uneconomic.
	Even worse is the position of the local supermarket. In one's local newspaper, Tesco, Sainsbury's or Safeway will often advertise petrol as a loss-leader as a reason to shop with them. We now have a situation where one can go to Tesco and fill up one's car tank with petrol and its boot with booze but one cannot buy a six-pack of beer in one's local garage shop and thereby support the continuation of a shop in one's village or locality. Where is the fairness in that? It is one law for the big boys and another for the small ones.
	We have already dealt a blow to local garages. As the noble Baroness kindly confirmed to me in writing, if they have so much as a microwave or offer a hot cup of coffee after 11 p.m. they will need a licence. That blow has increased the regulations they will face as a result of the Bill. The Labour Party has shed crocodile tears about village shops. If the Bill is not changed, it will help to hasten their demise by prohibiting the combination of services and units in the way that I have described.
	Amendment No. 434 seeks to leave out the words,
	"premises used primarily as a garage or which form part of premises which are primarily so used".
	That is an extraordinarily wide definition and will mean that no village garage will be able to sell alcohol.
	Amendment No. 435 seeks to leave out another—if I may so call it—Lord Davies of Oldham type clause, where,
	"the Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of excluded premises".
	Therefore, later on we may find that an already strict interpretation can be made even stricter if the definition is changed in regulations. Amendment No. 436 is consequent on the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support me in striking a blow for the village shop, the village garage and the village off-licence.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendments of my noble friend, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. This subject caused a considerable amount of debate among colleagues. Some felt quite strongly that the exemptions were right and others felt that my noble friend's amendments were right. It was interesting that the more we asked people whether alcohol is sold in garage forecourts, the more we realised that most people think it is already. Can the Minister tell us whether there are pertinent examples to exempt the selling of alcohol in garage forecourt stores? Some of my noble friend's illustrations emphasise why in practice it does not make sense to have this exemption for licensed premises.
	The effect of the amendments is to allow the sale by retail or the supply of alcohol from premises used primarily as a garage or which form part of such premises without a premises licence. I emphasise those last few words. The amendment would not permit the sale of alcohol from garages without a premises licence. A licensing authority would still have to decide whether to grant a premises licence in respect of those garages.
	We believe that the decision whether to grant a premises licence for a garage, thereby permitting the sale of alcohol, should be left to the relevant licensing authority, rather than this absolute prohibition in the Bill. There may be circumstances where it is acceptable that alcohol could be sold from a garage, to which my noble friend has already referred, particularly—we stress "particularly"—in rural areas.
	We appreciate that it would rarely be acceptable for alcohol to be sold from a garage. The obvious reason is the assumption that people will get drunk while driving. But surely a licensing authority is best placed to consider the individual circumstances of each case. A blanket ban imposed by Parliament would have an unwarranted effect on garages where it is appropriate that a premises licence should be granted.

Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has made out an overwhelming case for the amendment. However, if the Government resist—as I fear they might—perhaps I may suggest a compromise. My compromise will not go as far as the Minister, or I for that matter, would like but it would be better than nothing. In doing so, I shall revert to a point I made at Second Reading. As the Minister is, I am sure, aware, Scandinavian governments are traditionally very strict about alcohol sales to the point of being positively puritanical. They have relaxed a little in recent years, but nevertheless their rules and regulations are still much stricter than those in this country.
	However, a certain type of alcohol, known as light beer and light cider, which contains less than 2.2 per cent by volume, is treated much more benignly and can be sold at many outlets where sales of stronger beers, wines and spirits would be totally forbidden. There is a logical reason for that, which is that this beer is so weak that it is almost impossible to get drunk on it. In a nutshell, the more one drinks the quicker one excretes it.
	Clause 186 provides that drinks containing less than 0.5 per cent alcohol can be sold anywhere. Not many people find that particularly appealing. Although the 2.2 per cent beer is not as pleasant to drink as the 3.5 per cent or above, it is still better than nothing. Many people greatly dislike—for example, if they want to have a picnic—sweet fizzy drinks that are full of artificial flavouring and colouring and so on.
	So I think that that would be a perfectly reasonable compromise. I know the Government cannot give a snap answer, but perhaps they might like to reflect on it before the next stage.

Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. I speak to the issue raised in Amendment No. 436, which seeks to leave out subsection (c)(i), which is the retailing of petrol. The noble Lord made the point that local shops and garages are under pressure. I know that for a fact because I used to own a petrol station, which unfortunately went out of business last year because petrol margins were so short and we were making more out of the shop sales. It might have helped if the shop had sold alcohol.
	I am not convinced by the argument that sales of alcohol on forecourts would lead to drink driving because anyone in a car can drive to an off-licence. However, one issue I wish to raise is that there seems to be a slight dichotomy in the Bill, which is that one reason many local garages are going out of business is that most people in rural areas shop in superstores. They will drive 30 to 40 miles to go to a superstore and at the same time fill up with much cheaper petrol. I know this is the case throughout the country.
	Can the Minister give an indication whether any of the big superstores, such as Tesco or Sainsbury's, will be affected by subsection (c)(i)—the retailing of petrol—because most superstores have a garage attached to them? At what point do those garages come under that provision? It seems unfortunate that forecourts will be penalised. However, the very arguments that have been made against garages selling alcohol could also be applied to these superstores which sell alcohol until late.

Lord Crickhowell: I support my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and seek clarification. I confess that I buy my whisky at the Sainsbury store on the other side of the river here and fill up at the same Sainsbury—as, I dare say, do other Members of the Committee. However, my questions arise from the situation in a little village that I know near my home in Wales. I am not sure what constitutes premises that are primarily a garage. There is a village store that has some petrol pumps on one side. The chap comes out of the store to sell the petrol and frequently, while he is filling my tank, I go into the shop to buy goods. At exactly the same distance on the other side of the store is the village pub. So if anyone wanted to occupy the time while the tank was being filled, he could pop into the village pub and buy some drink.
	However, without looking at the accounts of my friend who runs that operation on a monthly or annual basis, I could not begin to know whether he is selling more goods in his shop or petrol, or whether that varied from year to year or month to month. Exactly how are the garages to be affected defined? Finally, if I owned a garage in a village and the village shop next door decided to establish separate companies and called one "Village Shop Ltd" and the other "Village Garage Ltd" but continued to operate them alongside each other, would I get round the provision or not? We are in jungle territory, and I should like to know exactly how we get out of the jungle.

Baroness Blackstone: The prohibition as it affects garage premises does not prevent licensing authorities, as at present, from licensing the sale of alcohol at garages at which the primary use of the premises—in effect, the intensity of their use by customers—is not as a garage. The clause defines use as a garage if the premises are used for the retailing of petrol or derv, or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles.
	Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and others suggested, we have made the provision in recognition of the fact that the garage shop often plays a vital role in rural communities, where it may be the only store in a locality. We therefore do not intend to remove the special provision, which currently allows around 550 garages in England and Wales to sell alcohol. Indeed, if the garage owned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was making more profit from items sold other than petrol, it could almost certainly have obtained an alcohol licence and could continue to do so under the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord will consider buying back the garage in the light of that. However, to respond to the noble Lord's point about superstores, they will be able to continue to sell petrol if they want to.
	The Government do not believe that all garages should be able to sell alcohol, as that would undermine hard-won gains in combating drink-driving. As I have implied, we recognise that in certain rural areas the garage shop may also be the only convenience store, so it is not practical to ban its sale from garages entirely where most of the premises' customers use its services for purposes other than buying petrol. However, after careful consideration, our view is that it would be inappropriate to allow sales of alcohol from all garages—which would be the effect of the amendments—for exactly the reason that I mentioned a moment ago: it would undermine the hard-won gains in combating drink-driving achieved during recent decades.

Baroness Buscombe: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening at this point, but surely the principle in relation to drink-driving would apply whether or not the premises were used primarily as a garage.

Baroness Blackstone: I recognise that the question posed is perfectly reasonable, but it is a matter of considering the balance of different issues. It would be unreasonable for the Government to prevent a shop that was the only local shop from selling alcohol because it happened also to sell petrol on the side. That is entirely different from a motorway service station selling bottles of whisky or other alcohol to people who are about to set off down the motorway. It is a question of using common sense in making decisions about where such sales are appropriate.
	Before the noble Baroness intervened, I was about to say that we can be pleased that there were about 480 alcohol-related fatalities in Great Britain in 2001, compared with more than 1,600 in 1979. So there has been a substantial reduction, and it would be unfortunate to put that at risk by giving out the kind of mixed messages about alcohol and driving that allowing widespread sales of alcohol from all garages would undoubtedly represent.
	Perhaps I should remind Conservative Members of the Committee that the provisions linking the right of garages to obtain alcohol licences were introduced relatively recently by a Conservative Government. Road safety organisations and those concerned about drink-driving would be surprised if there was a complete volte face on the part of Conservative Members.

Lord Crickhowell: Perhaps the Minister will answer my question. Is the distinction made on grounds measured by turnover? What constitutes premises that are primarily garages? In the example that I gave, I have not the faintest idea whether that premises is primarily a village shop or a garage. Is that clearly understood and laid down?

Baroness Blackstone: I think that I am right to say that that is measured by turnover, but if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord to let him know.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying that I found that a most extraordinary reply. I began by saying that it was never my intention to deal with motorway service areas. My amendment does not affect motorway service areas, which clearly should not sell alcohol. People drive down motorways to travel, not for local purposes.
	Secondly, then to say that Sainsbury and Tesco, which sell hundreds of millions of pounds worth of alcohol a year, will be let off the restriction but that local shops will not seems extraordinarily biased. If the Minister wants to argue, as she has, that we should not be able to buy booze because of the danger of alcohol-related accidents, driving to Tesco is just as dangerous as driving to a local shop.
	Thirdly, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, the Bill is supposed to give power to people to reflect the circumstances of their areas. As she said, why cannot we let the local licensing authority have discretion to decide whether that suits it or not? That seems to be the way to deal with the matter, rather than this blanket ban.
	Finally, the Minister said that an exclusion would continue for 450 or 550 garages. I do not read that in the Bill. The Bill appears to exclude,
	"premises used primarily as a garage or which form part of premises which are primarily so used".
	It does not state, "excluding the 450 that are currently allowed".
	We shall not take the matter further now, but the Government are being extraordinarily cavalier with both local licensing authorities and local shops, about which they have previously expressed so much concern. We shall return to the matter, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 435 and 436 not moved.]
	Clause 173 agreed to.
	Clause 174 [Rights of entry to investigate licensable activities]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 437:
	Page 97, line 27, at end insert "unless a constable or an authorised person has reasonable cause to believe that there are activities being carried on at the premises which would require a premises licence to be in force at the premises"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 437, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 438. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 437.
	Clause 174 enables constables or authorised officers of the licensing authority to enter premises if they believe that the premises,
	"are being, or are about to be, used for a licensable activity".
	Such officers can do so only,
	"with a view to seeing whether the activity is being, or is to be, carried on under and in accordance with"
	a premises licence, a club premises certificate or a temporary event notice. Subsection (7) provides that that right of entry does not exist in respect of premises where only a club premises certificate is held. That would mean that, if the holder of a club premises certificate allowed public entertainment on the premises that would require a premises licence in addition to the club certificate and he failed to obtain that premises licence, the police and local authority would not be able to enter the premises to ascertain whether such unlawful activity was being carried on.
	I turn to Amendment No. 438. Clause 174(1) provides for police officers or other authorised persons, such as licensing authority officers, to enter premises if they have reason to believe that a licensable activity is being, or is about to be, undertaken. That power is conferred for the purposes of investigating licensable activities.
	Clause 175 provides a similar power for the investigation of licensing offences if it is believed that an offence under the Bill,
	"has been, is being or is about to be committed".
	However, Clause 175(1) restricts the rights of entry and search in such circumstances to police officers. Both sets of rights have attached to them additional rights to force entry, if necessary, and it would be an offence, in both instances, to obstruct entry by a person authorised under Clauses 174 or 175.
	The distinction between investigating licensable activities and the investigation of licensing offences is an academic one. There is no reason why licensing officers or authorised persons should not be given rights under Clause 175 relating to the investigation of licensing offences to match those conferred by Clause 174 relating to licensable activities. Local authorities already exercise such rights in respect of public entertainment licensing. It would be absurd not to use their resources and rely entirely on the already overstretched police.
	It is likely that, without the amendment, many serious offences—some related to safety—would go uninvestigated. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 437 would enlarge the powers of the police and the licensing authority officers to enter qualifying clubs. It would, for example, allow a licensing authority officer to enter a club to check whether entertainment not covered by its club premises certificate was being provided. Clause 174 needs to be read in conjunction with Clause 175. Clause 174 is all about investigating and checking. It does not require reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been, or is about to be, committed. In contrast, Clause 175 deals with a case in which the police have reason to suspect the commission of an offence under the Bill. The later clause confers on the police a power of entry to the premises, which may be premises of any kind, including club premises.
	The Government believe that Parliament should be cautious about extending rights of entry to qualifying clubs, especially if, as in this case, the power to enter carries with it the power to use reasonable force, if necessary. Qualifying clubs are, by definition, private premises not open to the general public, and there is a long tradition of responsible and law-abiding operation in the club movement. We do not have a serious problem of abuse. Of course, from time to time, with thousands of clubs across the country, things may go wrong, and rules may be bent or broken. But it is possible for the law to be enforced without going so far as what is suggested in the amendment.
	If the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that offences under the Bill are being committed, Clause 175 comes into play. The powers of entry and search provided in Clause 95 may also be relevant. Those responsible may be prosecuted, and the club will be at risk of losing its premises certificate. The amendment would give the police and licensing authorities a right to enter club premises without having any reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence there. They could do so simply in order to check whether everything was in order. In the absence of real evidence of widespread abuse, that would be a step too far and would undermine an important distinction between clubs and licensed premises that are open to the public. We cannot support Amendment No. 437.
	Amendment No. 438 would substantially enlarge the powers of local authority licensing officers—and, indeed, other officials—in a way that cannot be justified. As I said, Clause 175 gives the police the power to enter any premises, using reasonable force, if necessary, if they have reason to suspect that an offence under the Bill is being committed. It is a far-reaching power, but we believe that it is right to enable the police to act promptly if they encounter circumstances that give rise to reasonable suspicion—for example, if private premises are being used in practice as an unlicensed pub or disco. However, it is one thing to confer the powers on police officers but quite another to extend them to officials whose training and responsibilities probably relate only to licensing or environmental health law.
	The amendment would mean that a local authority licensing officer could break down someone's front door and enter his home if the officer reasonably suspected that alcohol was being kept there with a view to its unlawful future sale. Leaving aside the point that that has nothing to do with environmental health, I invite the Committee to consider whether that is something that we want licensing officers to do. It is fairly obvious that we do not. It is a matter for the police. If the argument is that, in practice, local authority licensing officers would not use powers of entry in such cases, the case for conferring such powers in the first place falls away.
	Local authority officers are not equipped to use the far-reaching powers conferred by Clause 175. If they come across circumstances that lead them to believe that such powers should be used, they should tell the police and co-ordinate follow-up action with them. If local authority staff tried to use powers of forcible entry on their own, they would risk creating incidents of violence or disorder with which the police would have to deal.
	I hope, in the light of my explanation, that Amendment No. 438 will not be pressed.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response. I shall read in Hansard what she said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 174 agreed to.
	Clause 175 [Right of entry to investigate offences]:
	[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]
	Clause 175 agreed to.
	Clause 176 [Appeals against decisions of licensing authorities]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 438A:
	Page 98, line 6, leave out from "may" to end of line and insert ", in exceptional circumstances, make an order as to costs"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If magistrates were able simply to award costs without it being clearly understood that such costs were to be awarded only in exceptional cases, it would act as a deterrent to objectors who wished to appear before them, for whom the existing deterrence is already considerable.
	The subsequent amendments in the grouping are not in my name. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 439, 441ZA and 443, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke. In relation to Amendment No. 439, Clause 176 allows applicants for and holders of licences and club premises certificates, applicants for provisional notices and interim authority notices and applicants for temporary event notices, responsible authorities and interested parties, rights of appeal to a magistrates' court against decisions of a licensing authority. The appeal mechanism is set out in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
	Clause 176 sets out the powers of the magistrates in determining such appeals. However, it does not currently direct them as to the factors that they should take into account in determining such appeals. As the licensing authority is required to formulate, state and review its licensing policy under Clause 5 and have regard to it in exercising its licensing functions, it appears self-evident that in assessing the adequacy of a licensing authority's decision on appeal, the court should be obliged to have regard to the authority's licensing statement.
	Amendment No. 441ZA stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who is unable to be in his place today. It is largely dependent on whether fees will be subject to variation by licensing authorities. We shall know more on that issue in the near future when guidance is issued. Does the right of appeal against fees mean that every applicant will claim that they are being over-charged for their premises license? I would suggest that the answer is "not necessarily". There is much to be said for the right to question a decision on fees. If the holder of the premises is prepared to go through the administrative process of appealing, it is likely that they would have a legitimate claim. We believe that the matter should be discussed.
	In relation to Amendment No. 443, licensing committees on Benches are usually no larger than 20 in number at present. They develop specialist knowledge in licensing law. Perhaps I may add that this amendment has been developed in conjunction with the Justices' Clerks' Society. Schedule 5 allows the appeal to be heard by any magistrate. That would have severe implications on training resources and development of expertise.
	With an average Bench of 200 justices, the licensing committee would currently be no more than 20 justices. That would provide for a small, coherent unit whose members can be trained in this specialist area of law. The number of justices means that they will frequently sit on licensing matters. If all 200 justices have to be trained, that will be both time-consuming and expensive. It will also mean that any justice will sit on a licensing appeal only infrequently and thus not develop any level of expertise. Our amendment seeks to remedy the situation while keeping in line with the current position regarding justices' involvement in licensing matters.

Baroness Blackstone: It is of course only right that all parties involved in the licensing process have available appropriate remedies and freedom to challenge decisions, where appropriate. However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary.
	Amendment No. 438A would allow a magistrates' court that had heard an appeal to award costs only in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I do not agree with that principle. Courts should be allowed to award costs to any party involved in an appeal as they see fit. That is not a novel idea peculiar only to this Bill. It is the way in which the courts operate in the vast majority of cases.
	Amendment No. 439 would compel a court considering an appeal against a decision made by a licensing authority to have regard to the authority's statement of licensing policy when making its decision.
	Clause 176 concerns the mechanism of appeals. It sets out the three courses of action that a magistrates' court may take when hearing an appeal against the decision of a licensing authority. These courses of action are to dismiss the appeal; to substitute a decision for the original decision; or to remit the case to the licensing authority to dispose of in accordance with the direction of the court.
	What the clause does not seek to do is to tell the court, or those who are parties to the appeal, how to conduct their case. The licensing policy may be the main focus of the appeal—for instance, if an appellant believes that a decision made under it is wrong because the policy itself has not been made with proper regard to the Bill or its guidance. Neither party in an appeal may refer to the policy to support its argument. That is entirely proper.
	However, perhaps we may take an example of how the system might work in certain circumstances. Let us say that a licensing authority takes a decision based, as is required by the Bill, on its statement of licensing policy. Although the licensing policy would have been prepared in consultation with a range of interests, again as required by the Bill, there is a chance—perhaps even a likelihood—that some of those affected by licensing decisions would disagree with aspects of the policy. It would be open to anyone with a grievance over a decision made by the licensing authority to exercise their right of appeal to the magistrates' court.
	If the magistrates' court were required to take into account the licensing policy, its discretion would, in effect, be unfairly fettered. It would have little choice but to uphold any decision made by the licensing authority that was reasonably based on the licensing policy. It would deny appellants the opportunity to air their grievance that the aspect or aspects of the licensing policy on which was based the decision against which they were appealing. Furthermore, it must be right that the court considers the case before it on its individual merits, taking into account the normal rules of admissibility of evidence.
	I do not believe that the Government should interfere with the work of the magistrates' courts in the way that this amendment seeks to do. It would be to the detriment of all involved, particularly appellants.
	I have stated before that fees will be set centrally by the Secretary of State, following consultation. There will be no scope for variation by the licensing authority and, as a result, no need for an appeal against them. As I have explained previously, while the exact level of the fee is yet to be decided, we currently estimate that the one-off fee for a premises licence would range from £100 to £500, depending on the size of the premises. In the majority of cases, fees will be smaller than under the present systems. There will of course be only a single licence to apply for. In the majority of cases, there will be no need for a costly legal hearing just to obtain a licence.
	With fees set centrally, there will be no scope for the enormous variations that the industry faces at present. The principle that fees will be fair and proportionate would be undermined by Amendment No. 441ZA.
	In tabling Amendment No. 443, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has in mind that given the transfer of licensing functions to local authorities, we should preserve a role for licensing justices, with all their experience and specialist knowledge, as the appeal body. However, they will not have any experience of the new system set out in the Bill. That would require training by the Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chancellor's Department, in the same way as anyone coming new to the system and serving on an appeal body.
	Furthermore, the amendment would inject a degree of inflexibility into the system. It was largely for this reason, as well as for reasons of cost and accessibility, that so many stakeholders and individuals who responded to the White Paper asked for a change in the proposal that appeals against licensing decisions would be heard by the Crown Court. We were persuaded by the responses received that it would be quicker, cheaper and just as effective for those appeals to be heard by a magistrates' court. The Government's efforts to consult and involve all interested parties have continued throughout the past two years, and we have not heard calls for this change to be reversed. If only a certain number of magistrates were able to hear appeals, that would slow the process and make it less responsive. Therefore, for broadly the same reasons of speed and costs, I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who introduced Amendment No. 438A, will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Buscombe: I accept what the Minister says in relation to Amendments Nos. 439 and 441ZA. However, I urge her to reconsider her response to Amendment No. 443. We believe that it would make a great deal of sense to have a panel of justices. As I have already suggested, that would be a small coherent unit which could be trained in this specialist area of law and its number mean that members would frequently sit on licensing matters. They would therefore have a good understanding, they would be focused and they would have a developing expertise in the subject. That would make for speedy and cost-effective justice. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider what we said in relation to the amendment put forward by us in conjunction with the Justices' Clerks' Society.

Lord Avebury: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the Minister said that it was normal for the magistrates' court to have a total discretion to grant costs in any other case and that therefore there was no reason for making an exception in the case of licensing appeals. What happens at the moment? In a system in which the first application is to the magistrates' court, presumably no costs are awarded at that stage. When appeals are made to the High Court against a decision of the magistrates, would the High Court normally make a costs order against the residents' association or group of residents who are objecting to the award of the licence by the magistrates?
	Let us try to compare like with like. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could say a little more about how costs may be awarded, or are customarily awarded under the current procedure.

Baroness Blackstone: I have no figures about what happens under the existing system and therefore I cannot directly answer the noble Lord's question. I imagine that the position will vary substantially from case to case, but I shall see whether I can provide the figures which the noble Lord would like to see and write to him if they are available.
	My real concern is that the amendment would—or could—encourage licence applicants to appeal decisions which they knew they had little chance of winning. Residents and others could make appeals on the most tenuous of grounds. Both would be relatively secure in the knowledge that they were unlikely to have costs awarded against them.
	That would not make for a less bureaucratic system, which is what we are trying to achieve through the reforms in the Bill, but it would make for one in which decisions might be challenged as a matter of course. That would not be helpful.

Lord Avebury: That would make it even more essential that the Committee should have this information. If the purpose of allowing the courts the power to award costs against residents' associations is to deter them from making what the Minister believes to be frivolous applications, we need to know whether that happens at the moment. If the magistrates allow an application and the residents appeal that it is not to their advantage, are they at the moment deterred by the award of costs from making an appeal to the High Court? That is the question that I asked and it is reasonable that the Committee should require an answer to it.

Baroness Blackstone: I have given an answer. I do not have the figures to hand but I will make them available to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and copy them to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the searching questions which he asked her on my behalf. I understand the Government's position but I am not sure whether they are aware of the sense on the part of potential appellants that matters are weighted heavily against them, which in turn affects their sense of injustice about the Bill. However, I understand what the Minister said in response to my amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 439 not moved.]
	Clause 176 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Appeals]:
	[Amendments Nos. 440 to 443 not moved.]
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clauses 178 and 179 agreed to.
	Clause 180 [Provision of information]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 443A:
	Page 99, line 38, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: At the start of the business on Thursday, I said that I would seek to be brief and that any exception to that would be the one that proved the rule. I am afraid that this amendment will be the exception. Also on Thursday, in speaking to Amendment No. 211 I alluded to a future amendment relating to human rights. The letter which was then referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, arises from matters brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26th November by a former constituent of mine in Soho on behalf of his residents' association.
	Two days later, my former constituent wrote a letter on the same subject to the Government which ran to 13 well-argued pages and was copied to the Secretary of State at the DCMS. He alluded to human rights questions in this Bill at Clauses 13(3); 18(2); 34(2); 68(3); 71(2); 83(2); and to the effect of Clause 30(2) taken with Clauses 18(2) and 18(6)(d). I moved Amendment No. 211 in relation to Clause 30 and it is perhaps fortunate that his letter did not fall into my hands earlier, or we might have prolonged the earlier sittings on the Bill in that regard. He finally alluded to Clause 180, which now absorbs us.
	Some of the matters were treated on in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued before Christmas on 16th December. The chairman wrote to my former constituent on 13th January telling him that she had written to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and was awaiting a reply. I gather that one of the noble Baroness's ministerial colleagues did reply and that is the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred on Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, promised to ensure that it was released to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to this House. I am delighted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was as good as his word and that I have seen the letter.
	The letter is from the noble Baroness's colleague, Mr Howells. Its final words are:
	"representations have been received from the Musician's Union in relation to Article 10 rights"—
	the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred on Thursday—
	"from one Resident's Association about Article 8".
	That is the 13-page letter to which I have referred. Of the eight clauses in the Bill on which the residents' association letter treats in connection with Article 8, the letter from the noble Baroness's colleague Mr Howells to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights alludes only to two and neither of those is Clause 180 about which I am speaking. Therefore, this is a new matter.
	The first of the issues mentioned in the letter of 13th January from the chairman of the Joint Committee to my former constituent is the compatibility with ECHR Article 8 of provisions which would appear to take account of representations from residents about the impact of granting a licence on residents' Article 8 rights. The issue in Clause 180 is the right to information.
	I shall now quote from the letter which my former constituent sent to the Government on 26th November. It states:
	"Clause 180 of the Bill appears to prevent 'responsible parties' including the police and environmental health officers from making disclosures of information relating to crime and disorder and nuisance from licensed premises to parties other than other responsible parties and licensing authorities.
	In a cluster, a significant proportion of crime and disorder, nuisance, social and environmental issues are related to the impact of the entertainment premises on residents and legislation provides for disclosure of relevant information. For example the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires disclosure of crime and disorder data to sector committees, consultative committees, publication of crime and disorder audits, safety plans so that people who live and work in an area may give their views on policing issues. Similar provisions apply in the Local Government Act 2000 with respect to environmental control. The effect of Clause 180 will be to prevent disclosure of the most important elements of information under these provisions and effectively therefore it neuters these provisions.
	"This creates problems with respect to the need for public authorities, under the decision in Guerra v Italy"—
	to which an earlier reference had been made—
	"from making disclosures to those who are likely to be affected by the nuisance, crime and disorder and nuisance. It thereby (1) deprives them of the opportunity to decide whether to continue to live in the area (2) it deprives them of information to be able to make relevant representations and (3) it deprives them of the ability of bringing judicial review proceedings against bodies which have failed to exercise their powers properly under the licensing regime that is proposed. This is a violation of the principles set out in Guerra v Italy".
	My former constituent dilated on the case of Guerra v Italy elsewhere in the letter, where it stated:
	"in the case of Guerra v Italy, the Court ruled there was a breach of article 8. In that case the applicants lived near a chemical factory which was classified as 'high risk'. The Court found a breach of article 8 on the basis that, once the authorities became aware of essential information about the dangers inherent in the running of the factory, they delayed for several years before passing that information to the applicants and therefore prevented them from assessing the risks they and their families ran by continuing to live in the vicinity of the factory. The public authorities had positive obligations to disseminate the information and had failed to do so".
	It is important that people—particularly those living in town centres—should know about the crime, disorder, nuisance and safety impact on them of these problems, whether or not they come from licensed premises. This is required under the Crime and Disorder Act and under the Convention. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are in deep waters here and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not refer back to the previous occasions during the passage of the Bill on which these issues have arisen but concentrate on Clause 180, which the noble Lord seeks to amend.
	Throughout the Bill there are balances and safeguards offering protections and ensuring that those bodies responsible for enforcement have the information they need to act quickly and effectively when necessary.
	Clause 180 provides that information held by licensing authorities and responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill may be shared with other licensing authorities or responsible authorities where necessary to enable the discharging of licensing authority functions. It is perfectly reasonable that licensing authorities and bodies such as the police, fire authority and health and safety bodies should be able to share such information.
	What would not be reasonable, however, is for such information to be widely shared or shared for purposes other than the proper administration and enforcement of the licensing regime. The noble Lord's amendment would remove the protections for licence holders, applicants and other individuals. They could not be sure to which other organisations or individuals their personal information or data had been passed, or for what purpose.
	There is a requirement on all licensing authorities to keep a register of information about licences and notices, and Clause 8 provides the right level of disclosure of information about licensing decisions for inspection by the public. But in discharging licensing functions or the functions of a responsible authority, the licensing authority or responsible authority may well have in its possession information to which issues of confidentiality and so on will attach. It is right therefore that information which is not kept on the public register—which is, in fact, a considerable range of information—should be available only for limited purposes for restricted classes of person.
	I have listened carefully to the case for the amendment presented by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I understand entirely the example he gave about the dangers to the public of a lack of knowledge in regard to a chemical factory capable of emitting noxious substances, but the kind of premises we are seeking to licence—which, without doubt, may occasionally arouse anxiety in the public in terms of potential law breaking and difficulties with disturbances—do not present the same kind of threat to the life and welfare of individuals. Although I respect the case made by the noble Lord—as he rightly indicated, we in the department are fully aware of the deployment of this case across the range of the Bill—the amendment is not justified against the position I have described of how Clause 180 will work in association with Clause 8. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my response.

Lord Avebury: The Minister's reply is all very well but it does not address the main thrust of the amendment, which is concerned entirely with the human rights aspects of the matter. This leaves the Committee in some difficulty. There has been important correspondence between Miss Jean Corston, the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the responsible Minister, Mr Kim Howells, who has replied at not quite as great a length but his letter runs to five pages. The noble Lord promised the Committee on Thursday that copies of the letter would be placed in the Library of the House, but it became available only at lunch-time today and I have not had adequate time to study it properly and to arrive at a definite conclusion. I notice that the date on the top of the letter is 10th January. Considering its relevance, can the Minister say why the letter was not made available to the Committee earlier? That is one point he should perhaps have explained in his reply.
	A second matter the Minister has to explain is why, notwithstanding the fact that the writer of the original letter to Jean Corston, from which this correspondence arose, went into some detail about the provision of information under Clause 180—I would be out of order if I referred to the other matters dealt with in this correspondence—Mr Howells did not mention the provision of information. So, even if one accepts everything the noble Lord said about there being good reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of certain information provided in connection with the licence, if there is a conflict between the Human Rights Act and the data protection aspects of information that is given in confidence in connection with a licence, that needs to be thoroughly explored—and we have not had an opportunity to do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have done our best in regard to the letters. The Committee will know that the issue cropped up quite late in the debate on Thursday. In fact, if we had not adjourned when we did on Thursday evening there would have been no opportunity to get the letter to the Committee prior to the discussion of Clause 180. So we have tried to move with dispatch.
	Let me explain why the letter was not in the public domain before. We had interpreted the representation from the Human Rights Committee as an issue between the Human Rights Committee and Ministers. Representations were made by the chair of the Human Rights Committee and our response was to the chair, Jean Corston, a Member of another place. At that stage we believed we were being helpful to the committee and that an aspect of private communication was involved. When representation was made on Thursday that in the consideration of the Committee the contents of the letter should be made widely available, we did our best on that basis to make it available for today's debate. I recognise the difficulty of internalising the contents of lengthy letters on difficult issues when they have been available for only a short time. But that is the best explanation that I can give. It is offered in good faith. Given the background, it was the best we could do. The original intention was not to keep information from the Committee but for Ministers at that point to be engaged in direct communication with the chairman of the Human Rights Committee. The ministerial reply was drafted against the background of being of help to that committee. We had not thought, therefore, that the letter should be in the public domain—where it now is.
	I recognise that I am taking a different view from that of the author of the original letter, accurately reflected with regard to Clause 180 by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I recognise that these are significant issues that we shall need to ponder further. I have given the Committee as much information as I can at this juncture, both in terms of the issues contained in the letter and in terms of the defence of Clause 180 as it stands as against the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. I have no doubt that if he is dissatisfied with the situation he will ensure that we continue these discussions. We recognise that they range further across the Bill than this immediate clause. But at this stage I press the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the Minister and, as on the previous occasion, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for putting helpful questions on the present position. I should perhaps have said earlier that there is a remarkable tradition and reputation in Westminster in terms of the effectiveness, the openness and the candour of the police and community consultative groups. One of the reasons they work so well is their degree of openness—not merely between the police and the local authority but between the police, the local authority and the local community.
	I am concerned that I did not hear the Minister seek to disprove my observation about powers under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 2000 which I suggested on behalf of my former constituent were endangered by Clause 180 of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the provision to see whether such rights have been interfered with in the process.
	I understand the Minister's position. I followed what he said, but I hope that he will forgive me if I remark that this is a fairly sweeping and comprehensive clause and that his response was also of a somewhat sweeping nature. I hope that, in the light of this debate, he will re-examine the implications that I have raised to see whether there can be modifications and concessions which will not move matters against and away from the community, as the community presently believes is happening following the two previous pieces of legislation I mentioned, in terms of the powers exercised in the police and community consultative groups.
	I acknowledge that Guerra v Italy was very much a macro-case. I recognise that chemical factories are perhaps sui generis. But it was noticeable that in the same correspondence my former constituent also quoted Hatton and others v UK, which related to Heathrow airport. That brings us much nearer to home and returns to the issue of noise nuisance, which is of a similar nature.
	I shall give one micro-example to indicate the view of the person in the street. It relates to an elderly Chinese woman living in Soho—a fair number of Chinese live there—who wished to make a complaint about what she regarded as excessive behaviour at a large night-club to which I shall not allude but which may be described as having a somewhat controversial reputation; so it was not wholly unexpected that she should have been disturbed by it.
	She went first to the environmental health officer to find out her rights in terms of the conditions and conduct to which she was being subjected. The environmental health officer said that she should consult the police. When consulted in the street, the police said that she must go back to the environmental health officer; and the environmental health officer said that she must go to those who were carrying out the licensing procedure.
	If you are an elderly Chinese and you have been passed from pillar to post in that manner, you are not likely to feel that your human rights are being reinforced when you are the person who is making the complaint in the first place and when you have certain personal reservations about being too up-front as a member of your particular community in terms of making the complaint. I mention this example in order to set a framework for the manner in which the Government might examine the clause as drafted and reassure themselves that they are protecting the rights of individuals such as that elderly Chinese lady in terms of being able to get to the bottom of what is going on around her.
	I realise that I made a long speech at a late hour on human rights—the single matter that has exercised us at length—but perhaps that is no bad thing. The Government have said that they will re-examine the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 180 agreed to.
	Clauses 181 to 187 agreed to.
	Clause 188 [Other definitions]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 444:
	Page 103, line 27, leave out "place" and insert "building or open space for which a licence may be applied"

Baroness Buscombe: This amendment stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. It is straightforward. It is designed to add a degree of clarity to Clause 188, dealing with definitions.
	"Premises" suggestions a building or an enclosed space; and "place" does little to provide illumination otherwise. We believe that it is important to specify that under the Bill "premises" need not be an enclosed area but may be a building or open space. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness has indicated, the amendment raises an issue of definition. We happen to think that the word "place" is a pretty good English word, which certainly covers both the buildings and the open spaces referred to in the amendment. I think it will be clear that it applies as much to temporary structures as to permanent ones, and to places on land as well as on water. We do not want a restrictive interpretation of the location at which licensable activities will be carried on, and "place" is a broad and suitable word for this purpose.
	The amendment raises some interesting issues. It would remove the reference to,
	"a vehicle, vessel or moveable structure".
	I think it important that boats on which drink is served and entertainments staged are covered by the Bill in the interests of public safety and the prevention of nuisance in particular. I am slightly concerned that by defining "premises" as buildings or open spaces, doubt would be cast on this. So the amendment raises rather more problems than it sets out to solve—and I do not believe that there is a problem that needs solving. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I had rather hoped, given that I was so brief, that he might respond warmly and accept the amendment. However, I agree with him that "place" is a good English word. I thank him for the clarification of the meaning of that word in the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 445 not moved.]
	Clause 188 agreed to.
	Clause 189 [Index of defined expressions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 189 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Brightman: I applaud the Minister's drafting team for including Clause 189, on page 104, which is an index of specially defined words and expressions used in the Bill. It is of great convenience to the reader. By referring to the left-hand column of the index, the reader can discover at a glance whether a word or expression has or has not a special statutory meaning. If so, the right-hand column tells the reader at a glance where the meaning is to be found. Once rarely found in Bills, an index is becoming a feature of a number of well drafted Bills.
	The health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, at a closing stage of the Adoption and Children Bill last October, said that,
	"having an easy-to-understand glossary is of use to a Minister as it is to every other Member of your Lordships' House. I commend that very good practice of my own department to other government departments".—[Official Report, 30/10/02; col. 251.]
	I hope that, in time, every long Bill will have an index of defined expressions to help the reader.

Lord Avebury: I would more readily join the noble and learned Lord in applauding the index if it contained the word "vicinity". I apologise for returning to the subject. When I last raised it, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told me that the "vicinity" of a pub meant only the pub itself, the car park and associated land in the immediate vicinity. Obviously, that is not the case, because "vicinity" includes places where residents have a right to object.
	That is why the word is important—sufficiently so to be included in the index. A person living one street away from the premises to which a licence application pertains may wonder whether he has a right to object. If he lives two streets away, does he still have that right? The vagueness of the term "vicinity" and the absence of any direct way in which residents can ascertain whether they are within this mythical area may cause much trouble when the Bill becomes law.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I did not set out to define "vicinity". I referred to the specific context in which the word was used in the clause we were debating at the time. Although I do not have the text in front of me, it referred to "vicinity" and another quality; therefore I did not define "vicinity".
	I express the gratitude of the Bill team and the parliamentary draftsman to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his kind words about Clause 189. We appreciate that he had to stay until quite late on Thursday in the hope of reaching this clause so that he could say his kind words.

Clause 189 agreed to.
	Clause 190 agreed to.
	Clause 191 [Removal of privileges and exemptions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 191 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have taken an interest in the matter of the Worshipful Company of Vintners in the City of London, referred to in this clause, since its affairs were addressed in the White Paper. That was partly due to a then constituency interest, and because the company's privileges date back to a royal charter under King James I of England and King James VI of Scotland. Intemperate interference with royal charters can send a shiver up the spine of larger institutions such as universities, which might fear not so much Henry VIII powers as Henry VIII policies.
	Against those combined concerns, I took the liberty of bringing the Corporation of London into the matter. I am conscious that the company has been having constructive and productive conversations with the corporation, on one hand, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the other. I gather that the Government are minded to put into regulations an interpretation of these matters which is acceptable to the company. I raise the point at this stage only to secure an acknowledgement from the Government in Committee that my account is not at variance with their view and that they intend to include company-related matters discussed between the company and the department in regulations at a later stage.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am happy to confirm that that is the case. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thought I heard for the first time in our debate the use of the word "intemperate" interference. We certainly do not intend to use that word with regard to this Bill.

Lord Monson: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would press more vigorously his opposition to the clause. I declare an interest as a Cambridge graduate, although I was unaware of the privileges and exemptions referred to in the clause before I saw the Bill. Why are the Government so intent on eliminating every minor, historical anomaly in this country? They harm nobody and give pleasure to many.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Bill is about deregulation and modernising our provision for the good of the community. Modernisation would thwart certain exemptions and privileges that are at least 400 or 500 years old.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: It would be discourteous of me not to thank the Minister for his response. In referring to "intemperate interference" with royal charters, I was harking back to the White Paper. I was not seeking to make it apply to the Bill.

Clause 191 agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 446:
	After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
	"ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF LICENSING POLICY ON PUBLIC HEALTH
	(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a report on the effects on public health of the change in licensing policy introduced under this Act.
	(2) In each report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall include—
	(a) an assessment by the Chief Medical Officer of the public health advantages and disadvantages of alcohol and the licensing policy set out under this Act, including, specifically, the benefits of 24-hour drinking and the impact of the operation of the Act on young people between the ages of 16 and 21 and on children,
	(b) a statement of the number of facilities in England and Wales offering 24-hour drinking, listed by the licensing authority,
	(c) a statement of the number of fixed penalty offences, cautions and convictions for alcohol related offences in the preceding year, together with details of the number of recorded offences under Part 7 of this Act,
	(d) an estimate of the number of days lost to work as a result of alcohol related absence,
	(e) an estimate of the cost to the National Health Service of treating alcohol related illness,
	(f) a statement by the Secretary of State as to whether the reform of licensing policy has had any effect on the factors in paragraphs (b) to (e),
	(g) a statement from the bodies representing licensing authorities under section 3(1) setting out the costs of implementing licensing policy under this Act; whether those costs have been fully recovered through fees; and the impact, if any, of policy under this Act on the level and nature of crime, vandalism, nuisance, noise or other anti-social behaviour in England and Wales, and in compiling their report under this paragraph the local government representative bodies shall consult each of the licensing authorities which are members of their associations and shall, as appropriate, report on costs and effects in each licensing authority."

Baroness Buscombe: I spoke about public health on the second day of the Committee when I sought to introduce "the protection of public health" as one of the licensing objectives. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, replied that,
	"the wider area of the protection of public health",
	was,
	"not within the scope of the Bill".
	If noble Lords disagree with the protection of public health being a licensing objective, they should concede at least a review to illuminate the health effects of the changes in licensing. The Minister claimed that,
	"certain of the Bill's measures should have a positive effect on public health".—[Official Report, 17/12/02; col. 621.]
	He quoted New Zealand as an example. Like New Zealand, the United Kingdom is expected to benefit from extended opening hours since binge-drinking will be reduced.
	The Minister's view strikes me as naive or over-optimistic. In this country, the culture, especially but not exclusively among the young, is to drink as much as possible until you are exceptionally drunk. The longer the hours, probably the more alcohol will be consumed. Binge-drinking will not necessarily be reduced. It will most probably be transported from 10.45 p.m. to 12.45 a.m. or whenever premises shut.
	I do not need to describe to the Committee the adverse effect alcohol can have on health, not only on one's liver but of injury sustained as a direct result of alcohol consumption, including alcohol-related crime. The Bill is bound to have some effect on public health. We may share the Minister's optimism and hope that the effect is positive. No one can accurately predict the health repercussions of the Bill. It is not too much to ask the Government that we make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report to let us know the repercussions. The specific content of the report, which I have included in the amendment, is open to discussion. These are only suggestions about the detail that should be included. It may be an administrative burden for those in charge of collating the information and gathering the statistics, but that is not a valid reason for neglecting to monitor the effect of licensing on our nation's health. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is a worthwhile amendment and we should consider it carefully. A lot has been said in Committee on both sides of the argument about the extent to which the changes introduced by the Bill will increase the danger of alcohol abuse. The noble Baroness talked earlier this afternoon about the pride the Government have taken and the understandable pleasure we all take in the reduction in the number of drink-driving deaths. That information could also usefully be included. I know she is concerned about a few poor village shops selling a few beers and is prepared to ignore Sainsbury's and Tesco in the mean time.
	My noble friend has made an important point. We need to monitor the effects of the laws that we pass; otherwise we are working in a vacuum and will have no way of monitoring the effectiveness of our decisions.

Lord Avebury: I support the amendment and urge the Government to undertake research that would enable us to form some opinions about these matters. To a large extent we are arguing in the dark. I referred earlier to a study undertaken by the Liverpool Royal Infirmary in collaboration with one of the biggest night clubs in Liverpool to ascertain how many of the casualties brought into the A&E department were a direct result of events that had taken place in—or in the vicinity of, to use an ill-defined term—the establishment concerned. That was a model of its kind. I would like more research to be undertaken by the owners of licensed premises, in collaboration with their neighbouring hospitals, to see to what extent the people being brought into the hospitals had had accidents or suffered injuries as a result of the drink that they or somebody else had consumed. The Government's apparent unwillingness to look into the matter disturbs me. There is nothing about it in the Bill. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for moving the amendment, which I strongly support.
	Quite apart from that, there seems to be deliberate myopia about the effects of alcohol on injuries in general. I am not just talking about road accidents. We know something about them, because the police collect statistics that show the extent of road injuries caused by alcohol. There are a host of other kinds of injury. In any area in which the late-night economy flourishes, large numbers of young people congregate in the neighbourhood of the establishments, behaving aggressively and on the verge of committing offences of violence against each other. Sometimes they break out into offences of violence, as we know from some notorious cases in which, for example, prominent footballers have been involved in the neighbourhood of these establishments. Why do we not undertake the research that would enable us to answer questions about the links between these establishments and the accidents and emergencies that are brought into our hospitals?

Lord Monson: If the Government are convinced that the Bill will reduce alcoholism and alcohol-related offences, far from rejecting the amendment, they should welcome it with open arms.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: We are coming towards the end of the Committee stage. I have prayed in aid experience in Westminster on a number of occasions. In support of my noble friend, I pray in aid a brief experience in the City of London. A month after I became a Member of Parliament, a surgical team at Bart's invited me to spend 24 hours in the hospital, parking my car at 8 o'clock in the morning in the great quadrangle devised by Gibbs and not removing it until 8 o'clock the next morning. I was to follow the surgical team wherever it went. It was an extremely good education. I went into the operating theatre on that Friday afternoon. We agreed that, although I was to sleep in the hospital, if the surgical team was called on by accident and emergency to go into the operating theatre again to repair people who had been cut up in drinking episodes in Islington—because Friday was pay day—I was to be summoned from my bed and go through the night with them. In the event, the team was lucky that night, although I was warned that the odds were rather worse than 50:50 that I would be required to come. I therefore join my noble friend and others who have spoken in saying that this is an admirable subject on which research might be done.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise that the Committee has expressed keen interest in the matter. We had a substantive debate on Amendment No. 88, which referred to a possible report of this kind. Ensuring public health is one of the Government's key priorities. We hope the Bill will bring about a positive change in the drinking culture of England and Wales to complement the work of the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. We believe that the abolition of permitted hours will decrease binge drinking, removing the pressure on customers to drink as much as possible before closing time. Of course, we have some international examples of beneficial effects resulting from the ending of unreasonable licensing hours.
	The Government take these issues very seriously and we shall continue to monitor them. However, we do not need to set down in primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report every year on the matters covered by the Bill. The Government already publish much of the information proposed for the report. The Bill is about carrying on a range licensable activities, including the provision of entertainment and late-night refreshment, not just the sale and supply of alcohol.
	The Bill is not about 24-hour drinking, as the amendment seems to imply. It is about giving applicants for premises licences the ability to determine their opening hours according to the preferences of their customers and taking the views of local residents into account. We expect a very small proportion of premises to want to be open for anything like 24 hours.
	It seems unfair to saddle the representatives of licensing authorities—which I understand to mean the Local Government Association and its sister organisations—with the burden of producing a report on the impact of the policy on the level and nature of crime, vandalism, nuisance, noise or other anti-social behaviour. We should not underestimate the magnitude and difficulty of that task. As far as I am aware, the Local Government Association does not currently collect statistics that would enable such a report to be compiled. It would have to develop a reliable set of indicators that could demonstrate a correlation between the phenomenon cited and the reforms in licensing policy. The indicators would also need to be able to distinguish between the influence of licensing policy and other factors. For example, I am sure we all recognise that the overriding factor that determines the amount of alcohol that people consume is its price in relation to their disposable income.
	The suggestion in the amendment is that we could isolate the impact on public health of the extension of licensing hours, in some cases. That is a very difficult burden to place on licensing authorities. We have other means of identifying the health of the nation, contained in other documents and presentations by the Secretary of State for Health. It is not needed in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister, although his response was disappointing. My amendment does not necessarily suggest that we are talking about 24-hour opening. I cannot find one publican who is in favour of opening his premises for 24 hours—far from it. I keep talking to publicans and others who cannot understand why the legislation is being changed, as it will put enormous pressure on the industry and local authorities.
	There is genuine concern about the effects of alcohol on people of all ages, but especially on young people. The Government know from the debates that we have already had that one concern that I particularly have is in relation to unaccompanied children with unrestricted access. What will the effect be on them with regard to alcohol?
	We are encouraged to believe that the Bill will reduce the incidence of binge drinking, but we are not convinced. We hope that the Minister is right. However, the sort of information that we want local authorities to provide the Secretary of State would be for the benefit of industry, local authorities and the consumers—of all of us. It would help all of us better to understand whether such radical, liberal legislation will work. There is no doubt that we all have in the back of our minds what Deputy Chief Assistant Trotter said before our debates began, that alcohol equals crime and disorder. We hope as much as anyone that the results of the Bill will not lead there to be more reason to believe that statement.
	The Government are wrong to shy away from encouraging local authorities to collect these statistics. We are looking to the future. As for the argument that the Bill concerns entertainment as well as alcohol, we may not be so interested in entertainment in this regard. However, we are genuinely, sincerely and deeply interested in the effects that the Bill will have on alcohol, especially as it has an impact on our young people. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 192 to 195 agreed to.
	Clause 196 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 447:
	Page 107, line 19, at end insert "which may provide for some or all of the preceding provisions to come into force in different areas at different times"

Baroness Buscombe: I will be as brief as possible. I was grateful to all Members of the Committee who supported me over the previous amendment. They may feel that this is another opportunity to stress to the Government that this legislation represents a radical leap in the dark, and perhaps one that should be taken with care.
	The amendment offers the opportunity of a pilot scheme to ensure that the effects of the Bill might be introduced gently. We do not mean to be negative, but the amendment would provide the opportunity to draw back and reconsider, if the Bill did not work and it emerged from a pilot scheme that the impact was too great on local residents and placed pressure on the industry. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support my noble friend's idea of a pilot scheme—that would be fine. However, a rolling programme, working it out across the country, would be difficult to operate. It would make for extremely difficult operating conditions for companies if some operators of the many thousands of licensed premises were covered at one point and some were not covered until later. A pilot scheme that allows us to see the practical implications on the ground of this very large deregulatory Bill is a very worthwhile idea, but I would not want there to be a rolling programme throughout the country.

Baroness Blackstone: I understand the sentiment that lies behind the amendment, but we are disinclined to accept it for two reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already provides the Secretary of State with the power that it envisages. Secondly, notwithstanding the existence of the power, it would not be desirable that it should be exercised as the amendment suggests.
	Clause 196(2) should be read in conjunction with Clause 192, which deals with regulations and orders. It provides for flexibility in making the administrative arrangements for the implementation of the legislation. Those powers already allow the Secretary of State to provide for commencement in different parts of the country at different times and for different purposes. The amendment is therefore redundant.
	We would not want to leave Members of the Committee with the impression that we believe that allowing for commencement in different places at different times is a good idea, for exactly the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has given. The scheme that we propose to follow involves a transitional period that will begin soon after Royal Assent, during which existing licences of all types will migrate on to the new system and applications for personal licences will be processed.
	At the end of the transitional period, all new premises and personal licences should come into effect on the same day. That is to prevent unfair competition, with one premises allowed extended hours and others still subject to restrictive permitted hours. The Secretary of State would need quite a lot of persuasion to use her commencement powers as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested. If two neighbouring authorities were to adopt the reforms months or years apart, it would not take long before businesses started to relocate from one area to the other. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on that basis.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. As she said, the amendment has some difficult practical implications. We appreciate that it is a difficult matter, and we on these Benches discussed at enormous length what kind of scheme might allow us to see how the new provisions would work. The problem with rejecting the amendment is that, yes, there will be a transitional period, but the law will be passed. It will be enacted and enforced, and it will be too late to draw back the tide if we learn through experience that this is a Bill too far, or that some of the proposals in the Bill go too far. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 196 agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
	[Amendments Nos. 448 and 448A not moved.]
	Schedule 6 agreed to.
	Schedule 7 agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Transitional provision etc.]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 449:
	Page 154, line 28, at end insert "and the day so specified shall be no earlier than the date on which expires the period of nine months beginning with the date on which section 5 of this Act comes into force"

Baroness Buscombe: I shall attempt to be brief. It will be difficult, but this is an important area.
	In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments under my name in this group, which all relate to Schedule 8. The schedule sets out the transitional arrangements that will operate immediately after the Act comes into force. Onerous duties will fall on local authorities during this time. Holders of existing liquor licences, public entertainment licences and night cafe licences will be able to apply to the licensing authority, seeking conversion of the existing licence to a new premises licence under the Bill. In theory, that should not cause too much difficulty to licensing authorities in respect of those operators who are content to carry on without altering the conditions of their licence. In those cases, there should be a smooth transition.
	A good number of licence holders may want to seek variations to their existing licence, particularly so as to be able to take advantage of the relaxation of the licensing hours. As I said under previous amendments, we on these Benches do not anticipate, after talking to publicans and others, an enormous relaxation in licensing hours. A fair number said that they would probably want to be open for an additional hour or hour and a half. We shall see how that deals with binge drinking. In such cases, the licence holder would have to apply for a variation of the licence in the usual way, as set out in Clause 33. Such applications for variations can be opposed by representations. When relevant representations are made, hearings will have to be held to consider the applications. In areas where there are large numbers of licences—for example, in inner-city areas—and well-organised residents' groups, a large number of licensing hearings will take place during the transition period.
	Schedule 8 sets out time limits for dealing with applications during the transitional period. We believe that, as currently drafted, these limits are too onerous for local authorities. Given that we are up against time constraints, I simply urge Members of the Committee to read our amendments in conjunction with the Bill as currently drafted. As they will see, we are looking for an extended time period for the transitional period. In essence, the applicant would still have the six-month period from the commencement date in which to make his application for conversion and variation. With the amendments, however, the licensing authorities would then have a further 18 months after the end of that six-month period in which to deal with the application.
	Although one hopes that most applications can be dealt with in that period, there is potentially still scope for there to be such a backlog of hearings that the 18-month target is not achievable. In such circumstances, there is provision in the amendments to enable the licensing authority and the applicant to agree to an extension of the 18-month period. Obviously, if the applicant has become so frustrated that he would rather have the case dealt with by the magistrates, he would have the right to refuse to agree to the extension. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I speak to Amendment No. 461A, to which my name has been added. I support all the amendments in this group, but I especially support Amendment No. 461A. In certain local authorities, there could be difficulties during the short transition period. We have received representations about those difficulties from the Local Government Association, which would like an extension of the transition period. In the case of non-controversial applications, the amendments would allow licensed premises operators to assume that a licence has been renewed rather than require them to wait a further period. In the case of controversial applications, however, the onus would be on the licensing authority to make the applicant aware of the difficulties with licence renewal.

Baroness Blackstone: This group of amendments derives largely from the skilfully put views of a small section of local government. I do recognise, however, that Amendment No. 461A comes from a somewhat different angle. I should therefore like to deal with that amendment first.
	In the transition period, an application for the conversion of an existing licence to a premises licence may be accompanied by an application to vary the "new" licence. If the licensing authority fails to determine the application to convert to a basic new licence within two months, the application will automatically be granted. However, the Bill requires that if the licensing authority fails to determine applications for the variation of the converted premises licence within two months of receipt, the application for the variation would be rejected automatically.
	Amendment No. 461A would reverse that position and result in the automatic grant of a varied licence where the licensing authority did not meet the two-month deadline. As I said earlier, the default position for the conversion of an existing licence to a basic premises licence is the grant of that licence. Consequently, businesses would largely be able to continue with the range of authorisations they enjoyed under the old systems. This amendment, however, concerns variation where we believe that it is right and proper that interested parties and responsible authorities have the opportunity to make representations and for there to be a hearing.
	The overriding factor is the need to protect local residents and to further the licensing objectives. Granting the varied licence by default may expose the public to an unacceptable degree of risk and upset the balance to be achieved under the new system. I therefore hope that Amendment No. 461A will not be pressed.
	The remaining amendments in this group reduce the licensing authority's obligations by introducing extended time limits for processing applications. I shall speak to each of the amendments in turn, so this will take a little time. I should like to say first, however, that the Government have a duty not only to licensing authorities, residents and the industry, but also to the vast majority of ordinary people in this country who want to be treated like adults and are looking forward to the reforms. Indeed, most people think that change is long overdue, and they would not thank us for the further procrastination that would result from these amendments.
	Amendment No. 449 would mean that the transitional period could not begin until nine months after Section 5—which relates to the development and publication of licensing policy—had come into effect. I sympathise entirely with the intention behind the amendment. It is clear that the licensing authority will have had to develop its licensing policy before determining applications. However, there is no reason why it should take nine months. Nor is there any reason why responsible licensing authorities cannot start as soon as the guidance has been issued—which, as a result of developments in Committee, is likely to be earlier than had originally been planned. We expect licensing authorities to have prepared at least draft statements of licensing policy well before the beginning of the transitional period. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will understand why the Government must resist the amendment.
	Amendment No. 453 would lift the two-month time limit on the processing of applications where notification of an objection on the grounds of the crime prevention objective had been given by the police. Again, there is no reason why licensing authorities should need such a relaxation. We expect objections to be raised by the police in only a tiny fraction of cases. As we made clear in an earlier debate, we are committed to ensuring prompt handling of all aspects of the licensing regime—when it is fully up and running—by setting out time limits in secondary legislation. I think that the mood of the House was one of relief when that commitment was made. Agreeing to this amendment would completely undermine that principle. It would allow the licensing authority to sit on an application indefinitely, which is clearly not right. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
	Amendments Nos. 454 and 461 would increase the length of the period available to the licensing authority to process applications, from two months from the day of receipt to 24 months from the beginning of the transitional period. Again, there is absolutely no reason why it should take anything like that long to process applications, particularly when the vast majority should be handled administratively with no hearing and no involvement by members of the licensing committee. These are predominantly existing licences which have been approved either by licensing justices or the local authority itself.
	Local authorities already handle the processing of large volumes of applications across a range of areas. Some of the licensing functions will be new to licensing authorities, granted, but they do already process some 9,000 permanent and 37,000 temporary public entertainment licences. They are used to this work, and the Government believe that in most cases they should be able to cope.
	Amendments Nos. 459 and 463 would allow the licensing authority to agree with an applicant an extension to the period during which an application may be determined. Although admirable at first sight, these amendments would have no other effect than to increase the burden on the licensing authority and applicants alike. Why spend valuable time running after deadline extensions—which, in many cases, licensees may not want, particularly when they see their competitors benefit before them from the reforms—when the focus should be on processing applications? How would the "agreement" referred to be captured? Would a legal document be required? What if the licensing authority did not deliver by the new deadline? That approach truly is fraught with difficulty for very little, if any, gain. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have not put my name to any of the amendments in this group. However, the thrust of the Minister's argument seems to be that my noble friend Lady Buscombe is asking for too long a period, but that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is asking for too short a period. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The period is either too long or too short. It cannot be both.

Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that the noble Lords opposite can have it both ways.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. However, her response did not take into account several aspects of the issue. We have to remember that the Government have remained inflexible regarding the number of those who can sit on licensing committees. There will be a good number of applications during the transitional period, and I think that there will be an enormous burden on those who have to sit on those inflexible committees. As the members will all have to be present, there is also a question as to whether they will even be able to meet. I believe that Rutland has 20 members in total. If it had to have between 10 and 15 on the licensing committee and all those members had to be present to process licensing orders, those members would sit ad infinitum over a period of months. That would be a problem.
	Inner city areas will be inundated with huge numbers of applications for variations. I urge the Government to reconsider the matter between now and Report. We on these Benches have been approached not just by local authorities who fear the burdens that will be placed upon them but also by the industry which wants to be sure that applications are dealt with speedily. There are problems for everyone who is involved. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 449A:
	Page 154, line 45, leave out "disregarded" and insert "regarded"

Lord Redesdale: In moving Amendment No. 449A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 449B. These are two simple amendments that concern the "two in a bar" rule in the transitional period. We believe that the "two in a bar" rule should be regarded, not disregarded, through the transitional period. The amendment seeks to prevent any dislocation in the provision of live entertainment by groups such as folk singers in small pubs during the transitional period. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments, which do not change the current provision of live entertainment. Indeed, under the ruling, all live entertainment would have to stop at 11 o'clock. Although we do not support the "two in a bar" rule, we support it as a measure until a new licence is granted as the overlap period could last some time.
	I thank the Minister for providing his reply to the Human Rights Committee. However, the conclusions the Minister reached with regard to Article 10 are not shared by these Benches. That matter is slightly wide of the amendment, but I considered that I should mention it.
	The amendment indicates our concern over the future provision of live folk music and traditional music. We have deep concerns about the effect of the Bill on the provision of live entertainment. I very much hope that the Minister will take a different view from that expressed during earlier discussion on the Bill. If that is not the case, we shall have to return to this issue at a later stage. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have before me a ferocious speech against the "two in a bar" rule which I should love to read out. However, I am totally disarmed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that he was opposed to the "two in a bar" rule and that his amendment was concerned only with the transitional period. As the "two in a bar" rule will survive during the transitional period and will be abolished only on D-Day, I can only say that the two amendments are misconceived.

Lord Redesdale: I am delighted to hear that. Although we shall withdraw these two amendments, I am not sure that the fundamental problems associated with the removal of the "two in a bar" rule are being tackled. However, I do not want to argue with the noble Lord at this point in the evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 449B not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 449C:
	Page 155, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) the owner of the business where the current licence holder is in the employ of that business consents to the application being made."

Baroness Buscombe: The amendment would allow a company to make the application for the premises licence without the need for its manager to make the application. The problem here is that under the licensing system a company such as Whitbread or Six Continents which operates its own businesses cannot currently own the licence as it has to be in the name of the manager. Hence every time a manager changes you have to re-apply for the licence under the name of the new manager.
	In changing to the new system it would be much simpler if, say, Whitbread, who will be the holder of the new licence can apply for the new licence without obtaining the consent of the manager. It is slightly bizarre that a company would have to seek the permission of its employees to apply for the licence. What if he or she refuses? This could put the licence in jeopardy and mean that the company misses out on transition arrangements while the problem is sorted out. But, more importantly, it will be much more efficient for an operating company such as I have mentioned to process all its applications together without the need to obtain 2,000 or 3,000 consent forms. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: We on these Benches support the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: The amendment betrays a narrow focus on pubs and the off-licence trade rather than on all the premises potentially affected. The intention of the amendment is clearly to prevent the manager of a supermarket or a pub manager employed by a pub operating company making the application for the premises licence in his name unless his employer thinks that that is acceptable. In other words, the employers want to make sure that they have the decision as to whether they hold the premises licence or some other employee does so.
	But I am afraid that that is not only what this amendment would do. There is nothing in the amendment that links the business in question to the licensable activities taking place on the premises. Does the Committee think that it would be appropriate that an employee of a computer company, who in his spare time is the secretary of the local village hall committee and holds the justices' licence for the hall, should have to ask his employer for consent to convert the licence? Of course not. It would be absurd and is clearly not what is intended. So my first point is that the amendment is not very well worded.
	We do not in any event accept that the current wording presents any problems for employers. Indeed, the anxiety that the noble Baroness expressed is simply not in any practical terms real. Is it really being suggested that an employee would do anything other than what his employer requires in this context? The owner of the supermarket or the pub operating chain can take action in respect of the individual under his employment contract if the employee acts against his instructions or seeks to damage his employer's business. So to all intents and purposes it is rather odd to suggest that the business would not make the decision as to who makes the application.
	As the wording of the amendment clearly goes far beyond what is intended and could cause considerable confusion, and as the intention behind it is based on an unjustified anxiety, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that response. The problem here is that it is considered unacceptable that companies running managed pubs, supermarkets or off-licences—I appreciate that my remarks focused on pubs but we are also discussing supermarkets, off-licences and so on—will not be able to apply for their premises licences without obtaining the consent of all their managers. However, I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I shall read the Minister's remarks with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 450 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 451:
	Page 155, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) an operating schedule in the specified form which includes a statement of the matters set out in section 17(4)"

Baroness Buscombe: Under the transitional provisions, provision is made for the documents which must accompany an application for a conversion of an existing licence to a premises licence. One of the major requirements for a premises licence holder under the Bill is to have an operating schedule, yet the transitional provisions make no provision for the holders of existing licences to provide an operating schedule to the council on conversion of the licence. This amendment would require an operating schedule to be provided to the council when the application for the conversion is made. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 451 is unnecessary, and I suspect that it may stem from a misunderstanding of what the transitional provisions of the Bill set out to achieve.
	The transitional process will have two distinct parts. The first is the conversion of existing licences into a new style premises licence. That involves the submission of all the licences held for a particular premises that an applicant wants to convert. Those licences may include justices' licences, a public entertainment licence, a licence under the Theatres Act and so on.
	The process does not require the submission of an operating schedule, which would be the effect of the amendment, because all the relevant operating conditions will be set out in those existing licences, and the incentive is to convert the old to the new. Except where the police object to the conversion of those existing licences, a new licence, reflecting the permissions and conditions in the existing set of licences will be issued automatically. There is absolutely no need for an operating schedule, because all the information is there already.
	The second part of the transitional process, where businesses want to make use of it, involves the variation of the existing permissions and conditions. Examples include changing the hours of operation of the business or seeking permission to put on public entertainment. That process will take place entirely in accordance with the arrangements set out in Clause 33 for variation of a licence, with all the scope for representations from responsible authorities and interested parties that that would entail.
	In the light of that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I am certainly satisfied by what she said to clarify the situation with regard to the transitional period, and I hope that those who urged us to table the amendment will also be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 452 to 463 not moved.]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 463A:
	Page 161, line 13, leave out "have regard to" and insert "accept the conditions of"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The amendment takes us to Part 1 of the schedule, which concerns transitional provision. It deals with the issue of provisional licences that have been granted under the old regime, but not finalised by the time we switch to the new regime.
	The arguments on the subject were made in another context on Clause 31 when we discussed further representations on provisional statements, which I described then as the second bite at the cherry. I want to rehearse those arguments briefly. If one seeks to build or develop a new public house, one would have to invest between £2 million and £3 million by the time the pub opens. Obviously, that is a big sum of money to put at risk, and the risk would be greater with the regime change in the middle.
	In the schedule, the new licensing authority,
	"must have regard to the provisional grant of the justices' licence".
	That seems an insufficiently strong set of words. I believe that they should be replaced so that the licensing authority must "accept the conditions of" the provisional grant of the justices' licence.
	The danger is that, apart from the unfairness of the matter, there may be a hiatus in either the development of new pubs or places of entertainment, or the reconstruction and refurbishment of old ones. Therefore, those who are putting their money at risk are entitled to a degree of certainty, and I believe that the new regime should not in the limited number of cases be able to second-guess the old one. If the justices have made a grant under the old one, it is incumbent on the licensing authority that comes in under the new system to accept the decisions of its predecessors. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We discussed the issue in some detail when we considered Clauses 28 to 31, which were concerned with the provisional statements. I hope that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the reassurance that he sought, and think that I did so to some extent. He is raising a special point now about the transitional period, which is fair enough.
	I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that the assurances that I gave for the permanent regime apply to the schedule as well. There are differences between "have regard to" and "accept the conditions of". The first phrase is very powerful. It means that it is not open to a licensing authority to disregard the grant of a provisional justices' licence. However, the second phrase means that the conditions attached to a provisional licence under the current law would have to be transposed intact into the new law.
	That is actually impossible. The new law will express the conditions differently, and there will have to be a continuing role for the licensing authorities to interpret the conditions that have been imposed under the provisional licence into the new licence under the new law. If there were not, they would not have anything to do, which is a minor issue and does not concern those with whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has discussed the amendment. The major point is that the amendment would be impossible. The protection is still there. The provisions are not a second bite at the cherry of the kind that he fears.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Clearly, I am comforted by his assurance about the force of the words "must have regard to". I understand that "accept the conditions of" would present a constitutional problem of translating one regime to another regime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 463B:
	Page 165, line 25, after "licence" insert ", or a person who has held a justices' licence for a period of not less than six months in the three years prior to the appointed day,"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 464 to 465A. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 463B and 465A. As the Bill is currently drafted, only those actively holding a justices' licence on the appointed day will be entitled to receive the new personal licence. We understand that anyone who has been in the trade, but not specifically responsible for a premises, will not get the benefit. That would be grossly unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, were not currently listed as licence holders. There could be a number of reasons for that. A company may have gone into receivership and the manager may have lost his position, a supermarket manager may be in between positions, or a tenant may be in the process of acquiring a new tenancy.
	The British Beer and Pub Association and all the other trade organisations have long argued that the transition should include those who, for whatever reason, are temporarily without a licence. They should be enabled to obtain a new style licence without the need to obtain the qualification. Some of those affected may have many years' experience in the trade. To those people, it would be more than insulting to have to sit such an examination. Many of them would of course also have obtained qualifications that are already available.
	Amendment No. 464 relates to applications for personal licences during the transitional period. Holders of existing justices' licences are to apply for a conversion to a personal licence during the transitional period. One of the documents that must accompany the application is a photograph in the specified form. The amendment provides more detail as to the format of the photograph, and would ensure that the photograph was of sufficient quality to enable the holder to be easily identified from the licence once issued.
	Finally, Amendment No. 465 would ensure that the licensing authority had sufficient proof of the applicant's home address when granting the converted licence. I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland: I support Amendments Nos. 463B and 465A.

Baroness Blackstone: I can see why the amendments have been tabled. However, two of them expose the public to an unacceptable degree of risk, and two of them are unnecessarily burdensome. Amendments Nos. 463B and 465A would extend the automatic "grandfather right" to a personal licence for existing holders of justices' licences for the sale of alcohol to cover anyone who had held a justices' licence for any period of six months during the previous three years.
	The transitional scheme set out in the Bill contains this and other grandfather rights for one very good reason: it allows businesses and individuals to continue trading during and after the transitional period as they did under the old licensing system with as little difficulty as possible. The public can be assured that individuals who hold a justices' licence at the beginning of the transitional period have been assessed by the magistrates as being fit and proper persons to sell alcohol.
	Extending the grandfather rights to anyone who has held a justices' licence for a period of six months in the previous three years is unacceptable for two reasons. First, if an individual does not hold a justices' licence at the beginning of the transitional period, the Government do not consider that he merits a grandfather right of this nature. He will be able to make use of the open, transparent and administratively simple application process for a personal licence. Secondly, who is to say why those individuals no longer hold a justices' licence? If an individual no longer holds a licence, the public cannot be assured that he or she is judged fit and proper to sell alcohol and may therefore be automatically awarded a new personal licence with no risk.
	Turning to the remainder of the amendments, the Bill makes it clear that the form of the licence will be set out in regulations. That satisfied the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I can give a clear undertaking that it will be the subject of consultation with all interested parties. However, I do not accept that the submission of four photographs is a reasonable requirement to place on applicants. In today's technological world, with electronic storage and transmission of data becoming the norm, I see no reason why—particularly in view of some of the comments we have heard about the setting up of IT systems by licensing authorities—photographs should not be stored and distributed in digital format. I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
	Amendment No. 465 is unnecessary. Those who wish to apply for a personal licence will be required to submit a number of documents, including their existing justices' licence. That licence will contain all the information necessary for the licensing authority to process the application. Placing a further requirement on applicants for more paperwork would be detrimental to the light touch that we all want. In the light of those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. In relation to the first group of amendments, the industry will be disappointed because it has, I understand, long argued with the Government that the arrangement is unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, do not happen to have, for example, a licence at the time. However, I understand and appreciate the Minister's arguments in response to the amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 464 to 465A not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 466:
	Page 168, line 10, leave out from second "of" to "premises" in line 11 and insert "existing licences (within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 8) in respect of"

Lord Davies of Oldham: This simple and uncontroversial amendment ensures that representatives of all those who are affected by the new licensing arrangements are properly consulted before the first licensing policy is prepared by each licensing authority.
	As we have considered in relation to Clause 5, one of the first things that has to be done to get the new arrangements going is for the licensing authority to prepare a licensing policy. It needs to consult on that policy. When the first policy is prepared we will be in a transitional period and there will, as yet, be no licensees under the new arrangements. So the Bill needs to make it clear who for this transitional period needs to be consulted about the licensing policy from the point of view of licensees themselves.
	The Bill as presented to the Chamber already provides for representatives of those who have justices' licences and of registered clubs to be consulted. However, it is clear that that is not sufficiently wide. It does not cover the other kinds of licensees who exist under the present arrangements: for theatres, cinemas, some public entertainment licensees, and late-night-refreshment licence holders. Those who are representative of those licensees should be consulted too and the amendment has that effect. Rather than listing them all again, the amendment provides that representatives of all relevant existing licence holders should be consulted. Amendment No. 466 therefore employs the definition of "existing licence holders", which is already in place in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 467:
	Page 168, line 14, leave out "that" and insert "the 1964"

Lord Davies of Oldham: This is a technical amendment, which relates to the subject matter of the amendment to which the Committee has just agreed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Iraq

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today. The Statement was as follows:
	"With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on further contingency preparations in relation to Iraq.
	"It may be helpful to remind the House of the preparations announced previously. On 25th November and 18th December, I described the measures we were taking to ensure that our forces were prepared and had the training, equipment and support they might need, as well as the consideration that we were giving to the potential requirement for reservists and additional maritime deployments.
	"In a Statement on 7th January, I announced the making of an order enabling the call-out of reservists, and the deployment of maritime forces including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. I explained that it was likely that we would want to make further deployments in the coming weeks to be able to keep military options open, and that we were taking steps to ensure the readiness of units and equipment, and the availability of appropriate chartered shipping and air transport. In a Written Statement on 14th January, I described the details of continuing preparatory activity, involving the movement and deployment of enabling equipment, including tracked vehicles, exploratory visits and liaison with other military staffs in the region.
	"When I made a Statement on 7th January, a number of honourable Members pressed me to say what other forces the Government intend to make available. In particular, I was invited to set out the nature of any land force that might be deployed. I explained at that time that I could not do so, for the simple reason that no decision had by then been taken.
	"I am now in a position to be able to tell the House that we have reached a view on the composition and deployment of a land force package to provide military capabilities for potential operations against Iraq.
	"This force will include Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division with support from 7th Armoured Brigade, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. Its equipment will include 120 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, 32 AS90 self-propelled guns, 18 light guns and a number of reconnaissance and other vehicles. The total number of personnel involved in this land force will be approximately 26,000. In addition, we are already deploying 3 Commando Brigade with around 4,000 personnel, including their supporting elements.
	"The House will not expect me to discuss the specific tasks that might be undertaken by our forces in the event of military operations. But this is a high-readiness, balanced and flexible force package, bringing together a wide range of capabilities. The Chiefs of Staff and I are confident that this is the right group of forces for the sort of tasks that may be necessary.
	"The House will recognise that a force package of this size cannot be deployed without notice. As the written Statement on 14th January explained, to keep this option open, we have already started the movement and deployment of enabling assets, including logistics, engineering, signals and command vehicles and equipment. We will now begin to deploy the combat equipment and personnel of the formations comprising the land force package. This will involve significant movements from units in both the United Kingdom and Germany before their deployment by sea and air over the days and weeks ahead. Headquarters and support staffs will also deploy to liaise with other military staffs in the region and to take forward planning and preparatory activity.
	"In the coming weeks, we will also need to call out additional reservists in support of these land forces. The details of our overall reservist requirement are continuing to evolve, and I expect to be able to provide further information on this in due course.
	"None of the steps we are taking represents a commitment of British forces to military action. These are measures necessary to provide a range of options which we may require. A decision to employ force has not been taken, nor is such a decision imminent or inevitable. But I must also emphasise, as all Members of this House will recognise, that the deployment of forces on this scale is no ordinary measure.
	"While we want Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, it is evident that we will not achieve that unless we continue to present him with a clear and credible threat of force. That is why I have announced these deployments in support of the diplomatic process to which we remain fully committed. It is not too late for Saddam Hussein to recognise the will of the international community and respect United Nations resolutions. Let us all hope that he does so".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the Statement that he has just made in connection with troop deployment to Iraq. On these Benches, we support Her Majesty's Government's position on the situation in Iraq. Your Lordships will no doubt be reminded that we have consistently backed a firm line against Saddam Hussein. I very much hope that the support of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be made known to the Armed Forces.
	There are some further questions to be asked concerning this deployment. It would be most helpful if the noble Lord could provide a little more detail to some of the points that he covered and give your Lordships some further assurances on the matters that I shall now touch on.
	I am aware that on 18th December in a Statement in another place the Secretary of State said that Her Majesty's Government would continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces were ready and had the training, equipment and support that they needed.
	First, will the Minister say how much armoured and infantry warfare training, including NBC training and fighting in built-up areas, has been carried out by the regiments and battalions? The requirement to have some 19,000 troops available for fire-fighting duties due to the firemen's strike has interfered with units' primary training, especially in 16 Air Assault Brigade. Is he satisfied that sufficient training has been completed, that there are sufficient reserve tanks to replace broken-down tanks and that the units are now at the appropriate battle standard? Will the NBC regiment be deployed to find NBC cover in view of the likely NBC threat?
	Secondly, who will provide the reserve for 7 Brigade? In addition, perhaps the noble Lord will say where the individual battle casualty reinforcements will come from and who will provide them. If they are to be reservists, can the noble Lord confirm that they will all have received refresher training to ensure that they are at the required battle standard? Recently there has been comment that employers will not retain jobs for reservists who have been called up. What action has been taken to ensure that employers will retain jobs for those who are required for emergency military action?
	I now turn to matters concerning equipment. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the Challenger 2 tanks have now been successfully desertised for operations in Iraq and that sufficient main engines, gearboxes, air filters and track will be available when required? Have the faults experienced from deployment of the AS90 on Exercise Saif Sareea now been rectified? On the subject of communications, what technical modifications, if any, have been made to the Clansman radio communications system and how many spare radio sets are in stock? Your Lordships will be aware of the introduction of the short-range personal radio for dismounted infantry sections, but that is of little use in armoured vehicles. Is it now Her Majesty's Government's decision to buy the USA IFF system and have it fitted to our armoured vehicles? Are there now sufficient stocks of desert clothing and reliable desert boots?
	Can the noble Lord also inform your Lordships whether improvements have now been completed to ensure that helicopters will be able to fly the required number of hours under desert conditions? Will the Apache helicopter be deployed in support of the force?
	Turning now to the subject of logistical sustainment, can the noble Lord confirm that there will be sufficient stocks of major assemblies, rations, spare radio sets and reserve ammunition over and above the planned daily expenditure rates?
	I now turn to medical matters. Can the Minister go into further detail as to how battle casualties will be cared for? Can he confirm the number of advanced dressing stations, field hospitals and general hospitals that will be deployed with the British force? Will he also assure the House that those medical units will be at full strength with the correct number of surgeons who are experienced in gunshot wounds and burns, anaesthetists and combat medical technicians? Presumably there will be a requirement to evacuate casualties to the United Kingdom. Which hospitals, in addition to the Centre for Medical Excellence at Birmingham, will have beds reserved for battle casualties from Iraq?
	Will the noble Lord expand a little more on some aspects of the chain of command? For example, who and which formation will have command and control over the British land forces, and will 1st Division command 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade, in addition to 7 Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade? Who will be the overall commander of British forces for this operation? I apologise to the noble Lord for asking so many questions. If he is not aware of all the answers, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
	Finally, if conflict should break out, I am sure that all your Lordships would wish the troops being deployed all good fortune and a safe and speedy return and would hope that those with families bear this operational separation with their normal and customary fortitude.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we too, on these Benches, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Our thoughts are with those troops on their way to the Gulf and their families at this time.
	Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient supplies are in place? I shall not go through the list raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I simply ask whether the Minister is satisfied that enough supplies are in place for the long period of time that the troops might be in the Gulf. Only last week the Prime Minister said that the international inspectors had spent only a week at their full complement undertaking weapons inspections. We on these Benches hope that he was sincere in his undertaking that they would be given as much time as was needed.
	We are uneasy about the escalation that has taken place, as I believe are many people throughout the country. We understand the necessity for pressure to be put on Saddam Hussein to underline the responsibility he has for disarmament.
	Under whose command will British forces be when they reach the Gulf? Will they be integrated into the US command and control or will they be under independent command? It will cause consternation if British forces are immediately integrated into the US command and control.
	My final question harks back to the last Gulf War. Will troops be given proper counselling and guidance over the vaccinations and inoculations they are receiving at present? That is an issue to which we shall probably return. I hope that the Ministry of Defence undertakes proper guidance to troops this time round.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support and kind words about the British Armed Forces, which I know will get back to them. This is a significant announcement, but it comes in the context of our ongoing military contingency planning, designed, as I repeated in the Statement, to maintain a credible threat of force in support of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.
	Both noble Lords asked a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, will forgive me if I do not even attempt to answer all the legitimate questions he raised. I shall do my best to answer some now; if others remain unanswered, I shall write to him in the normal way.
	The first question raised related to whether sufficient training had been carried out and whether the Armed Forces needed for FRESCO somehow prevented that. I give the noble Lord the assurance I believe he seeks. We shall ensure that there is sufficient training for all those sent to the Gulf and for those who have to use the tanks to which he referred.
	As regards employers, the noble Lord asked a question relating to reservists and the position in which they might find themselves when they return. I remind him of the terms of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. Under that Act an employer is required, where it is reasonable and practicable to do so, to take into his or her employment former employees who made a written application at the end of a period of called-out service. If an employer terminates a person's employment without that person's consent and does so solely or mainly by reason of a liability to be mobilised for military service, that employer is guilty of an offence. I have checked, and that is not a civil wrong; it is an offence under criminal law. In such circumstances the reservist may apply to a reinstatement committee to hear the case.
	As regards Challenger 2 and AS90, as the noble Lord knows work is being carried out now to ensure that they are desertised sufficiently. That work is ongoing and will continue when forces are in transit and in theatre as required. I give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks as regards clothing. In addition to our existing stocks, contracts are in place for the delivery at short order of 20,000 pairs of desert boots, 92,650 desert lightweight jackets and 89,700 pairs of desert lightweight trousers. We continue to work to ensure that our personnel are properly equipped to cope with the environmental conditions in which they may operate.
	The noble Lord asked about the medical position. Again, I can give him the reassurance he seeks. I shall write to him in due course with more detail. To date the Defence Medical Services have met all the operational commitments placed on them. That was, we acknowledge, achieved with the compulsory mobilisation of a small number of reservists. There is no question of British forces deploying on military operations without appropriate medical support.
	The noble Lord asked about command, as did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Here, I have to choose my words carefully. I am sure that both noble Lords and the House will understand why. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to discuss command and control arrangements or, indeed, the individuals who may be involved. Headquarters staffs will liaise and exercise as appropriate with US staffs in the region and elsewhere. The next sentence is important to both noble Lords. We shall ensure that UK command and control is in place at the appropriate levels. I have no doubt that in the weeks to come I shall be able, I hope, to be more forthcoming with the House on those perfectly legitimate questions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about sustainability. I think that that was at the root of his first and major question. It is far too early to speculate about how long we might need to maintain this particular deployment or, indeed, when military action might become inevitable. We are deploying forces now because it is the right thing to do in support of the Security Council resolution and the weapons inspection process. We all hope that military action will not be necessary.
	We consider this a balanced and flexible force which provides—I make no apology for repeating this—a potent and credible threat to Saddam Hussein. We are confident that UK Armed Forces will be able to fulfil their mission of ensuring Iraqi disarmament, however long that may take. As regards vaccinations, I give the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the assurance he seeks. Proper advice has been given to all those who are to be deployed to the Gulf.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord gave the House the figures for what is a considerable deployment of Her Majesty's forces. Can he give any figures with regard to the redeployment of other forces which will be necessary to cover the areas from which those who are going in the direction of the Middle East have gone?
	Further, he failed to answer my noble friend's questions. That was entirely reasonable because my noble friend asked many questions. However, can he assure the House that we shall have an opportunity in the near future to debate all the questions raised today in a more relaxed atmosphere and over a longer period than has been possible? Perhaps I may follow-up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, concerning Gulf War diseases from previous conflicts. The noble Lord says that all is well. However, it would be helpful if he could give that answer more fully.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as a debate is concerned, that will be a matter for the usual channels. I can, however, venture the opinion, probably shared by all Members of the House, that this House will have—as will another place—ample opportunity to discuss these very significant matters at the right time. I agree with the noble Lord about the seriousness of the Statement. The noble Lord talks about debating in a more relaxed atmosphere. Given that the House is hearing a serious statement, it is in as relaxed an atmosphere as it can be. Certainly, we would need to spend longer than we are spending on the subject. I think that that is the noble Lord's point.
	I shall go away and consider whether the answer I gave as to the medical position is adequate. If it is not, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, the Statement mentioned a large number of troops, some 26,000. Can the Minister give some idea of the time lag in this deployment? I ask because we are talking about a credible answer to Saddam Hussein's sins and omissions. Obviously, it would be no good if troops were to arrive in May or when the hot season starts.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord in broad terms. The noble Lord can be assured that troops will arrive in good time in order to do what they have to do in the Gulf area. We hope that the fact they are being sent, along with armed forces from the United States, will show Saddam Hussein that on this occasion the United Nations means business. I can reassure the noble Lord that our troops will be there in good time for any conflict, if that is what happens.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, does my noble friend have information as to whether any other European member of NATO has plans to send troops to the Middle East as we are doing, if not on the same scale?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not have any information in front of me concerning that matter. My noble friend will know that requests have been made by the United States Administration in the terms of his question. The answers are of course matters for the United Nations Administration. At present, I cannot say more than that.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I address my questions to the last part of the Statement and to the diplomatic process. Can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that if Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei report to the Security Council next week that they may require some more time for inspection, Her Majesty's Government will support that request?
	Secondly, does the Minister agree that, while a lot of focus is placed on the second resolution of the United Nations, every bit as important is whether Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei are, before any force is contemplated, able to state whether Saddam Hussein is in full compliance with the Security Council's resolutions? Will that judgment be one of the key factors as to whether the United Nations and the international community are able to address this matter as toughly as they ought to?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has, as the House knows, vast experience of these matters. I cannot give him explicitly the reassurance he seeks as to his first question. But I remind him of something that he will very well know, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on more than one occasion that UNMOVIC must have as much time as it needs before we reach any decisive view on the matter. The Prime Minister has said that its report back to the Security Council next Monday, 27th January, is not in itself an event that will necessarily lead to the next action but is a passage in what is happening. I can go that far but no further on the matter.
	As to the noble Lord's second question, I can give him the reassurance that we are thinking in the terms that he mentions.

Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what fixed-wing air cover will be provided for our troops—not only our ground troops but also our naval forces—if they are deployed, and under whose command that will be?
	My next question is not entirely frivolous, given the experience a previous government had in the Crimean war, but how will 20,000 pairs of boots equip 26,000 troops unless there is a complete fit?
	Finally, arising from the Minister's reply to my noble friend about the Challenger 2 tanks, can he assure us that the work now being done will be completed before there is any question of any armoured vehicle moving in the desert— that they will be desertised before they are deployed—as he said the work, which was well in hand four months ago, is not yet complete?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord as to his last question. Of course the vehicles will be desertised by the time they are deployed.
	As to the question about fixed-wing aircraft, the noble Lord will know that we have some aircraft in the region at present, which bravely enforce the no-fly zones. But, by their nature, aircraft can be deployed very quickly if they are required. The movements of enabling equipment, to which I referred, include some equipment and personnel, which would facilitate the deployment of additional aircraft in due course, if required. We do not see a need to deploy additional aircraft at present. But I give the assurance that we shall continue to inform the House—as I hope we have on various occasions on these matters—when such decisions are taken.
	The noble Lord need not worry. There will be good and enough desert boots for everyone.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the no-fly zone. Can he confirm that over the past year or so the Iraqi anti-aircraft capacity has been directed rather aggressively towards those missions? Can he say whether in recent weeks the Iraqis have locked on to our aircraft to a lesser or smaller extent than in the past?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend understates the position. The Iraqis have behaved with great aggression during the period he talks about towards those operating in the no-fly zones. I remind the House that the reason for those missions is to protect the minorities living in those parts of Iraq who have been the subject of appalling treatment by Saddam Hussein in the past.
	I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's second question, but I shall write to him.

Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [The general duty]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, leave out from second "is" to "to" in line 6 and insert "a fair, efficient and effective system promoting confidence in the rule of law so as"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The purpose of the first amendment is to try to ensure that this crucial clause, around which the whole of the Bill revolves, is more meaningful and provides more guidance to the Lord Chancellor, the courts, justices of the peace and those who run the courts.
	It is obvious—many have said it—that the Bill centralises power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the proposed national agency in a way that justice has never been centralised in this country. That being so, it is not just desirable but essential that the duty placed on the Lord Chancellor with regard to the running of the court system as a whole be as explicit as possible, without being too confining and inflexible. The Bill is littered with a panoply of powers and rights on the Lord Chancellor's behalf, so it is the more important that where there is an expression of his or her duty, it should be phrased in justiciable terms.
	Clause 1(1) describes the Lord Chancellor's duty under the Bill as being,
	"to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on the business of",
	the courts,
	"and that appropriate services are provided for those courts".
	One need not be Alice in Wonderland to think that the key words, "efficient", "effective" and "appropriate", are about as vague and empty of meaning as any three words could be. They are words that would appeal to the dictator and the tyrant as giving him about as much rope as he could ever require. Not for a second do I equate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with tyranny, but my point is obvious.
	The insertion proposed by Amendment No. 1 is fairly modest, but takes the general duty considerably further by referring to fairness and promotion of the interests of justice. Those words are not mine, they are taken from the mission statement of the courts agency. What is good for the legislative goose is good for the gander. I should be disappointed—nay, suspicious—if such gentle words as fairness and promotion of the interests of justice should be in any way obnoxious to the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 in the name of my noble friend, which are grouped with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has moved. He is absolutely right; I agree with his introduction of his amendment. This clause is crucial and we need to give more guidance to the public, the courts and the Lord Chancellor about how the statutory duty will operate.
	The Bill's drafting makes us believe that local justice is under threat from the Government. Although they wax lyrical about the importance of devolving government to the regions and localities, the Bill comprehensively centralises power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 2 challenges the Government to make it plain on the face of the Bill that they will consider the needs of rural as well as urban areas in fulfilling the duty in Clause 1. As the noble Lord explained, the clause places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is an efficient and effective courts system and that he provides the right services for the courts. Our amendment adds necessary clarity to that duty.
	It is all too easy for a Lord Chancellor keen on streamlining a centralised system in which he is carefully paring down the budget to withdraw services from some areas despite the cost and inconvenience that that may bring to the public who use the courts. The Committee may be aware from a Written Answer given in another place on 29th October that since 1997, 96 magistrates' courts have closed, while only 14 new ones have opened. From Appleby to Ripon, from Windermere to South Molton, in Devon, courts have closed the length and breadth of the country. The victims of crime, witnesses and defendants on bail all have to travel longer distances. As Lord Justice Auld pointed out on page 301 of his report:
	"In mid-Wales, Devon and Cornwall and Cumbria, for example, current closures can result in a 30 or 40 miles travelling distance to and from court, often without a choice of convenient public transport".
	As the Deputy Chairman of the Magistrates' Association said:
	"the closures now are seriously going to disrupt local and community justice because they will just put pressure on other parts of the justice system—the police, probation and social services".
	Lord Justice Auld explained in his report how the closures are driven by the Government. As he states:
	"In the case of closure of a magistrates' court, the decision is notionally that of the Magistrates' Courts Committee, but they are so bound by his"—
	the Lord Chancellor's—
	"guidelines as to usage, available modern facilities, accommodation for prisoners and budgetary restrictions that, effectively, closures are driven by his Department".
	So it seems only right that the statutory duty that the Bill imposes on the Lord Chancellor should make it as clear as day that his responsibility must be to provide a system that serves both rural and urban areas well.
	Amendment No. 4 develops the theme explored by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I shall address a specific issue about the report to be issued. Clause 1(4) states that the Lord Chancellor must publish an annual report on the business of the courts. That implies that he does not have to address what is provided in the final line of subsection (1), line 10, which includes in his duty that he should ensure,
	"that appropriate services are provided for those courts".
	I table the amendment simply to ask the Minister to put on the record an assurance—which I hope that she can give with ease—that the report will cover not only details of the business of the supreme court, county courts and magistrates' courts but of the Lord Chancellor's performance in providing appropriate services. That would involve a statement of what he considers to be appropriate services and an assessment of how closely his provision has matched the ideal during the period of the report. If she is able to give such an assurance, she may want to consider some redrafting of the clause.

Lord Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, emphasised the centralisation of powers and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has shrewdly underscored the problems of rural areas. With local justice in mind, I first pay tribute to the work of countless magistrates throughout the nation.
	The system of local justice is well proven. There is an army of voluntary citizens of repute and integrity—not least in Wales. In my 31 years in another place, I never once received a complaint about magistrates' courts in all my always voluminous mailbag. Magistrates are invaluable. They are known, tried and tested. They are successful, experienced and co-operative. They represent a very British tradition.
	I am concerned about the loss of magistrates' courts in Wales, in her rural areas. Court closures in rural areas pose real problems, especially for those who are not comfortably off. No one can any longer be sure of the reliability of the rural bus services. A bus fare for a long distance can mount up to a king's ransom. Even in the urban area with which I am familiar in north-east Wales, real difficulties are faced by those who must place their trust in a bus service to get to a distant magistrates' court. For instance, to travel one-way by taxi from urban Deeside to the magistrates' courts at Mold—the county seat—might cost more than £6. That is a large amount for some and particularly for someone without a regular income who may face a fine at the magistrates' court. We have closed enough magistrates' courts. Rural Wales should take no more closures, and there should be no more closures in urban areas of Wales.

Lord Waddington: It is with some diffidence that I rise so early in the Committee stage, but there is a general point to be made that has a bearing on all the amendments that have been tabled to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, described as a centralising measure.
	Before we impose any new duties on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as the Bill and the proposed amendments would do, we should pause to consider the powers and duties that the noble and learned Lord already has and the great increase in those powers in recent years. I hope that we will receive some assurance that further changes in the responsibilities of the noble and learned Lord's department are not in the offing, with further powers to be conferred on the department. The answer to that question will cover my response to many of the proposals in the Bill and to many of the amendments.
	The responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department have been greatly expanded in recent years. Responsibility for the magistrates' courts, for instance, was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department from the Home Office in 1992 by The Transfer of Functions (Magistrates' Courts and Family Law) Order. In 2001, there was a greater extension of the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. According to The Civil Service Year Book, the Lord Chancellor is also responsible for,
	"a number of constitutional policy matters, transferred from the Home Office in June 2001. These include Royal, church and hereditary matters and policy on fundamental marriage law, same-sex issues and transsexual people".
	It goes on:
	"The Lord Chancellor is the Privy Counsellor primarily concerned with the affairs of the Crown Dependencies of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man and is the channel of communication between the insular authorities and the Crown and the UK Government".
	That is of interest to me. According to paragraph 839 of volume 6 of Halsbury's Statutes, the Home Secretary is the Minister responsible. I certainly thought that I was responsible when I was Home Secretary. If that change has come about, it has done so recently and must be noted.
	The entry in The Civil Service Year Book goes on to say that the Lord Chancellor has,
	"oversight of a wide programme of Government civil legislation and reform in such fields as human rights, freedom of information, data protection, family law, property law, defamation and legal aid and House of Lords Reform".
	It cannot be doubted that there has been a considerable accretion to the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in recent years. We must ask ourselves whether that is a desirable state of affairs.
	Once, the Lord Chancellor's Department was a small department, staffed by lawyers. Now, it has a budget of nearly £3 billion and a staff of 12,000. Small wonder that a new House of Commons Select Committee is to be set up to oversee the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department. I read that the department is to have a new name: it is to be the Department for Justice, Rights and the Constitution. Is it not well on the way to becoming an all-powerful Ministry of Justice? Is that what we want? Is that the way that we are going? If so, we should be aware of it.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 may be seen as useful, but they should be seen against the background of a department under the leadership of a Lord Chancellor bent on increasing his empire. How can the Bill be read in a different way, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is putting civil servants in charge of the magistrates' courts, rather than locally accountable magistrates' courts committees? That is not done to ensure the best local service possible but in the belief that more control by the department will yield cuts in costs. Anyone who doubts that should study the interview reported in the Daily Telegraph on 15th April last year. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to,
	"vast opportunities for economies of scale".
	Secondly, the Bill puts courts administration councils, which are advisory bodies, in the place of the magistrates' courts committees, which have real powers, are truly accountable and have ensured that magistrates' courts have performed at least as efficiently—more efficiently, many may say—as have the Crown Courts. The Bill takes from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster powers to appoint magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Only two years ago, a similar proposal was put out to consultation; it received minimal support and had to be withdrawn by the Government. That proposal was made in the interests of uniformity for uniformity's sake. Goodness me, why would the Government reintroduce a proposal that was almost universally condemned only two years ago, unless it is because of the determination of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to concentrate more and more powers in his own hands?
	I hope that everybody who will take part in the Committee stage will not just consider the wording of amendments but will ask themselves some serious questions about whether this is, in fact, an exercise in concentrating more powers in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department, as we move inexorably towards a Ministry of Justice.

Lord Goodhart: I must take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just said. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has become the member of the Government responsible for oversight of the constitution. However, critical as I am, from time to time, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—we will certainly be critical of many parts of the Bill—I would slightly prefer that the constitution should be in his hands than in those of the Home Secretary. We need not go into that question to any great extent when considering this Bill.
	I agreed with everything said by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and by the noble Lord, Lord Jones. The Bill loses sight of the importance of the principle of justice. As the House's Constitution Committee said, the Bill raises constitutional issues. It is unfortunate that we begin with Clause 1(1) referring to an efficient and effective system for the carrying on of business. The Bill is about justice. It is essential that not only should there be an efficient and effective system, but, as my noble friend's amendment points out, that it should be fair and should further the rule of law. That is why I am keen to support the amendment. Its significance may be largely symbolic, but symbols are sometimes very powerful instruments. I should feel much happier about this Bill if at the beginning it states that it is concerned with justice and not just with administration of the court system.

Lord Borrie: I want to address my remarks to one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I fully agreed with earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, regarding the relationship between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I believe that the early 1990s transfer of power and the supervision of magistrates' courts from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department was not before time. Since the Beeching report of 1970, it has been exceedingly appropriate that the Home Office, with its huge range of responsibilities, including those for the police and the prosecution service, should not also be responsible for the administration of the courts. A start was made in the 1970s and 1980s towards the Lord Chancellor's Department having overall supervision of all courts, not just the superior courts. Taking the responsibility for magistrates' courts from the Home Office seemed to me to be highly appropriate, not before time, and certainly should not be questioned today. Probably, the Minister was pleased by the extremes of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he spoke in terms of the accretion of power to the Lord Chancellor—making it sound as though it was personal—and suggesting that in this Bill the accretion of power is going much too far.
	I accept that there is plenty of room for argument during the course of debating the amendments and raising the issues of how the administration should be run, the management of magistrates' courts, and so forth. However, it would be inappropriate to examine this Bill against a background of feeling that there is an accretion of power which is wholly undesirable when, to my mind, it is logical and sensible that there should be one government department concerned with the administration of the courts as a whole.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I make a plea for rural areas to be taken properly into consideration in these matters. Whether a person is the victim of a charge or the victim of a burglary, access to justice is very significant. I come from Essex—Welsh noble Lords may not even recognise it as rural. However, decisions taken in the past, in the name of rationalisation, on access to magistrates' courts mean that even in Essex it is quite likely that a person may have to travel on public transport for over an hour and a half in order to get to a court. Most people in Essex have inevitably solved the problem in the environmentally unfriendly way—by owing a car. Even a car is not without its expense and troubles. If a person owns an old banger, it may not always guarantee to get a person to court in time. Therefore, the question of access is fundamentally important. Although it may fly in the face of efficiency and effectiveness, it should be considered.
	In the light of what has just been said, the question of the powers of the Lord Chancellor should be addressed. The powers are spelt out in considerable detail in this Bill—I read them with considerable interest. I admit that I had somewhat peculiar feelings about them because if the Lord Chancellor were properly to spend his time on the responsibilities which this Bill gives him, when there is no process or mechanism for those responsibilities to be undertaken or fulfilled on his behalf, the likelihood is that he would not have time to appear in this Chamber, as he formally and properly should. Under the Bill, the business of running the justice of this country, which is his and his personally, could not properly be undertaken unless it became virtually a full-time job. Therefore, I have somewhat ambivalent feelings on this matter.
	Eighteen separate executive functions are listed in the Bill, some of which the Lord Chancellor executes at present under known processes, but no process is described on the face of the Bill as to how he should fulfil those functions. Those are functions which are totally and personally his responsibility. The Lord Chancellor has the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, as a very able assistant. He has a whole department full of civil servants who may well undertake much of this work. But the way in which it is to be described in the Bill is not set out. We have no knowledge of what is to happen. As drafted, responsibility is personally with the Lord Chancellor, in a way that is different and distinct from the ways in which I have usually seen ministerial responsibilities described in a Bill. That concerns me.
	I have every faith in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but when a tool is fashioned, it should be remembered that reasonable people may not always be the people who will use it. We should be concerned about that particular aspect.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said about the importance of close scrutiny of any powers which are conferred or added to at the hands of the executive. On reading the Second Reading debate again, one notes that time and again noble Lords perceive this measure as centralising. Time and again, the importance of local justice is emphasised and the two are really incompatible.
	Therefore, it is right that in a Bill which greatly enhances the power of the Lord Chancellor, it should begin with a statement of general duty. I speak with great diffidence on any matter connected with parliamentary drafting in the presence of my noble friend Lord Renton who is a great authority on the subject. Purists cavil at statements of general duty; still more, at statements of general purpose. They actually come to very much the same thing.
	We are now into a cult—and I do not believe that it is one that will be reversed—where Bills begin with very general statements of this character. I, for one, do not object to that in this Bill. However, I want to see a broader formulation of the general duty than the clause gives at present. I thought that I might venture, presumptuously, to offer the Minister a tiny bit of assistance in formulating her reply. I fear that at the foot of her brief there appears the word in capital letters "Resist".
	I support Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Minister will notice that the words "efficient" and "effective" are common to both the amendment and the Bill. Therefore, if she is looking for justification for objecting to the amendment, it must be on a ground other than the inclusion of "efficient and effective system".
	Can the Minister really find it in her heart to object to the word "fair" being added to the general duty? It would be difficult to do that, it seems to me, but she is a person of great ingenuity. I know that she would not wish to find a way of objecting to that, so perhaps her mind will be concentrated on the last part, which is,
	"promoting confidence in the rule of law so as to support the carrying on of the business".
	Can one really object to a general duty having the objective of promoting confidence in the rule of law?
	All Members of the Committee have spoken of the need for public confidence in the system of justice, and the reasons for that do not need reciting. I therefore hope that she will accept that analysis of the task which will confront her if she resists the amendment and concentrates on those two short points.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, without repeating what has been said, I greatly support the importance of rural justice. One of the grounds for changing the administration of the magistrates' courts in the Bill is the wide variation in the performance of magistrates' courts throughout the country as against a particular target. Rural magistrates' courts are often singled out for adverse comment. One of the reasons for cases having to be adjourned must be that witnesses, let alone parties, find it impossible to reach court in time. They have to travel long distances on erratic bus services and sometimes find themselves unable to attend. What then happens? The court either has to dispose of the case in the absence of a witness, in which case justice is not done, or the case is adjourned, which plays havoc with target records. That is where the proposal comes in. I cannot for the life of me see how there can be a reasonable objection to adding the words,
	"in both rural and urban areas".
	We are greatly involved in annual performance reports, which is where Amendment No. 4 comes in. I welcome the proposal under Clause 1(4) that:
	"The Lord Chancellor must, within 18 months of the coming into force of this section, and afterwards annually, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to the business of the courts".
	All that is sought to be added are the words,
	"and the manner in which he has fulfilled his general duty in relation to the courts".
	What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the noble and learned gander and I would find great comfort if those words were added. I hope that the Minister will accede at least to that.

Lord Renton: This is the first time I have intervened in any way on the Bill. In doing so, perhaps I should mention that I have had a lot of experience of the matters contained in it. I was a Home Office Minister for four and a half years, admittedly many years ago. In those days, I was puzzled by the idea that the administration of justice should be divided between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. However, as regards magistrates' courts, we must be careful about over-centralisation when the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Home Secretary, assumes responsibility, as he will do under the Bill.
	We have not yet been told, and we may not learn in detail, the precise administrative proposals that the Lord Chancellor has, or will have, for the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts. But I believe that the present system of enabling local influence and power to be exerted in the choice of magistrates is most useful. I do not see any need for that to change merely because the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Home Secretary, will be responsible when the Bill comes into force.
	Furthermore, I assume that the magistrates' courts will be brought under the control of the Lord Chancellor. I do not believe that any Members on our side will go so far as to try to change that, but we should try to ensure that the change is made in a way that enables justice to be done locally, even if the Lord Chancellor has to answer to Parliament for the way in which it is done.
	I hate talking about myself, but it happens that I became a Queen's Counsel a long time ago—nearly 50 years ago. I had a varied experience undertaking minor judicial work as a recorder, chairman of quarter sessions and so forth. Indeed, for a couple of years I was a relief judge at the Old Bailey. Therefore, I naturally want to draw upon my memories of legal experience—and I share much more important and recent memories with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and others who have already spoken. I believe that when making such a fundamental change in our law we must be most careful. We must ensure that the statute in which it is done puts the matter in a way which is lucid, in the public interest and places the necessary responsibility on the Lord Chancellor but does not go into too much detail.
	I am sorry to have spoken so generally, but I now turn to the amendments. I agree with my noble and learned friend that we should favour the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—or at least something on those lines. He has it pretty well right. Strictly speaking, from the drafting point of view, in using the general expression "magistrates' courts" it should not be necessary to refer to the "rural and urban areas". However, in the circumstances, in order to draw attention to the rural court, I see no harm in making those words part of the drafting. Therefore, I favour that amendment.
	As regards Amendment No. 4, put forward by my noble friends on the Front Bench, I wonder whether the use of the phrase,
	"the manner in which he has fulfilled his general duty in relation to the courts",
	will lead to some slight confusion. What kind of manner is required? Is it an administrative duty? Is it a political duty? "Manner" is a rather dangerous word to use, but if we can find a better word, the purpose of Amendment No. 4 is most worthy.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I never dreamt that we would have such an exciting start to the Courts Bill. "Tyranny" and "the end of justice as we know it" have been referred to. If only it were so exciting. The Bill is about justice—and justice is the most important issue.
	Clause 1 deals with the duty placed upon the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is,
	"an efficient and effective system"—
	these are the important words—
	"to support the carrying on of the business of . . . the Supreme Court . . . county courts, and . . . magistrates' courts".
	There is not a Member of the Committee who does not know that the business of the Supreme Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts is justice.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for bringing forward, as he promised at Second Reading, the proposed amendment to Clause 1 because it gives me an opportunity to set out clearly what we aim to achieve. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for exposing so fully and exhorting the powers that the Lord Chancellor's Department now has. It is a little known fact and I am grateful to him for enumerating the burden that now rests so weightily on the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor and his junior Ministers. I thank the noble Lord wholeheartedly for that.
	However, some of the burdens were transferred a while ago. Transfers of ministerial functions are made regularly to effect improvements in the delivery of government business and, in this case, improvements in the justice system. None of the burdens transferred to the Lord Chancellor has been ill-placed. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that no one in this Chamber should under-estimate the Lord Chancellor's capacity for work. If the 20-hour day was invented, it was probably invented for him if for no one else.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was concerned about the formulation of effective and efficient administration and the reason for the reform. The reform is intended to improve the management of the system. The unification of the management of the courts will enable better use of resources at national and local levels, including better use of the court estate. The agency will be flexible, matching resources to need, unhindered by organisational boundaries. It will be more efficient and provide better value through the sharing and pooling of resources and greater purchasing power, freeing resource for front-line operations.
	The Committee will remember that in his report Lord Justice Auld identified the difficulties currently experienced as a result of the way in which the courts are managed. At page 290 of the report he stated:
	"The present divided system leads to much waste of court and other accommodation. There is some sharing between the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts. But it is complicated by different ownership, funding and timing arrangements and Treasury Guidelines".
	So the unified administration could provide wider opportunities for sharing accommodation, enabling greater flexibility and use of resources.
	We have already identified about 70 county courts where there is potential for co-locating hearings with magistrates' courts, where joint use will make the courts more viable than maintaining separate, under-used facilities which might otherwise be under threat of closure. I heard what a number of noble Lords said about the need to keep justice local and to utilise the courts estate in a proper way. This measure is a way of doing so more efficiently and effectively.
	There are examples of co-operation happening now. Co-location of county courts within magistrates' courts buildings already exists in a number of locations around the country—for example, Rotherham, Kendal and Ashford—and Altrincham county court has recently moved into improved accommodation in Trafford magistrates' court. But projects such as these are voluntary and the procedures are cumbersome. Where accommodation is shared, the agreement of three different organisations is required to get a project off the ground—the Court Service, the magistrates' courts committee and the local authority which is an area's "paying authority".
	The improved access to local courts sought by my noble friend Lord Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other Members of the Committee can be achieved by unifying the courts administration—which will enable better management of the resources at our disposal—and not by a change in the wording of the clause. The import of what we are doing is very important. This is not a centralising measure but an opportunity to achieve real local accountability and local involvement.
	Amendment No. 2, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is unnecessary. The general duty already requires that the Lord Chancellor provides support to the business of the Supreme Court and all county courts and magistrates' courts, regardless of whether they are located in rural, urban, or indeed semi-rural or suburban areas.
	Amendment No. 4, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke with her usual eloquence, requires that the annual report on the business of the courts under Clause 1(4) will include a report on the manner in which the Lord Chancellor has fulfilled his Clause 1 duty to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the courts, and that appropriate services are provided for the courts.
	Such a provision is unnecessary. Consistent with our intention to establish an executive agency to carry out the day-to-day running of the courts, the annual report of that agency will be laid before Parliament to satisfy the requirement in the clause. The annual report will give information about the business of all the courts and will, for the first time, present performance information about the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in a single annual report, available for public and parliamentary scrutiny. It will also include corporate information about the agency itself, including its framework document. This report will provide the committee with all the information it seeks about the way in which the courts are managed.
	The clause is in line with Section 1(12) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which currently requires the Lord Chancellor to report on the business of the courts and under which the Court Service annual report is laid before Parliament. I have noted the concerns of noble Lords about this subsection in general and I shall give further consideration as to how these concerns may be satisfied.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, there is a variation in performance across the country and a real need for improvement. The Bill will make no changes to the system for appointing magistrates. It will retain the magistrates' local links and magistrates will be assigned to local justice areas.
	At the moment it is not the Lord Chancellor who makes decisions in relation to closures but the magistrates' court committee. The Lord Chancellor becomes involved only if there is an appeal by the paying authority, the local authority. Guidance on courthouse closures issued to the MCCs by the CCMCC is being updated to include a rural proofing check list to ensure that any impact on rural users is taken into account. This move is in accordance with the report of Lord Justice Auld and will bring about the improvements that Members of the Committee very much want to see.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have been listening to the verbiage in which everything surrounding the Bill is steeped. What on earth is a "rural proofing checklist"? What on earth is an "internal and external stakeholder"—the phrase used in the letter distributed by the noble Baroness? What specifically in this context is meant by "local accountability"—a phrase used a short time ago by the noble Baroness? What does it mean? It certainly does not mean the power of hiring and firing staff; it does not mean the power of directing staff and telling them what to do; or conducting any managerial form. What does "local accountability" mean in plain English, so that we can all understand it?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It may be helpful to the Committee if I comment on the amendments standing in my name before the Minister responds. She may find it convenient to respond to both at the same time.
	Perhaps I may begin with my Amendment No. 4. I listened carefully to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton. I always defer to him on drafting. I accept entirely what he said in regard to my use of the word "manner". I shall take the amendment away and examine it carefully.
	I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that the amendment is unnecessary. I shall not press it at this stage, because I accept the view of my noble friend Lord Renton that it is not as well drafted as it might be. However, for the convenience of the Committee, I should point out that I find the Minister's response to Amendment No. 2 disappointing, particularly in the light of the supporting comments by Members of the Committee regarding the importance of the Government's mind being focused on both rural and urban matters.
	The Minister says that the amendment is unnecessary. It is my view that it is necessary. It would act as a simple aide-memoire to future generations of Lord Chancellors. Earlier, the Minister referred to the personality—the person who currently occupies the office of Lord Chancellor. But we are talking about the office itself, as it will persist, we hope, for generations to come.
	Therefore, Amendment No. 2 perhaps deserves more regard from the Government. It offers a practical and perhaps a right way forward to achieve greater clarity in Clause 1. On that basis, I give notice that if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment I may well be minded to press it when it is called.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister may prefer to answer those points before I make my comments on her response. It is entirely up to her.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to respond to both points. In regard to the first set of comments, one has to examine the Bill clause by clause. I hope that in the letter I wrote in December I made it absolutely clear who the stakeholders are. Although I used the general term, I went on to specify that they are the court users, the agencies, the judges and all others engaged in work in the courts.
	As I hope Members of the Committee will have seen both from my letter in December and from my further letter in January, the Lord Chancellor's Department intends to have a series of consultations right across the country. These will involve all those who currently use the courts in a discussion as to what the ambit of the council should be and what that of the agency should be.
	We feel strongly that "local accountability" means just that—full engagement of the local users in the fashioning of the new system to make sure that it works. We understand absolutely that one size will not fit all. The kind of arrangements that will be necessary in urban areas may be significantly different from those in rural areas. We want the flexibility to be able to reflect those differences.
	As regards the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in relation to Amendment No. 2, we are concerned that all county courts and all magistrates' courts should be involved. As I said in answer to her question, one goes from rural to urban, to semi-rural, and to suburban areas. The last thing anyone in this Chamber would want is those in a particular area believing they are not involved. The word "all" means just that—absolutely every court in England and Wales which is covered by the Bill. In due course we shall have programmes fashioned to the needs of individual areas, reflected in the councils.
	We shall be examining the Bill clause by clause. I can rely on Members of the Committee to give attention to the fine detail that is merited. I shall be happy as we do so—rather than having, if I may respectfully say so, a Second Reading debate—to respond to particular clauses as they arise.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: It would be helpful to have a dictionary before we begin. Who are the "court users"? Who are the "customers"? Do the customers sit in the dock? Are they the people who have to travel to the court? Who are the people referred to in all the jargon contained in the Bill?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply—so full that it seemed to extend across virtually all the key concepts in the Bill. I shall not respond to more than those that related to my amendment. I am sure the Minister will have noted the fact that all Members of the Committee who spoke—I am grateful for their support—were in favour of both my amendment and the two with which it is grouped. There was no contrary voice.
	Perhaps I may prevail on the Minister at least to think more about the key words on which the whole of the Bill is founded. Her answer to my points was that one should not be concerned about the absence of a reference to justice or fairness or,
	"promoting confidence in the rule of law".
	As she said, the business of the courts is the business of justice. That is a fair point, and one I accept. I ask the Minister, in turn, fairly to accept, for reasons of symbolism and public understanding, if nothing else, that that implication should find a place on the face of the Bill.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Lord give way? The effect of his remarks is implied in everything that is done by the courts and on behalf of the courts. Why does he insist on underwriting this provision?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Very simply, because one should not rely on an implication where a central duty of the Lord Chancellor under the whole of the Bill is expressed in other terms. If the noble Lord is saying the same as the noble Baroness—and I believe that he is—my argument is simply that what I have been discussing should be on the face of the Bill. It is bizarre that concepts of fairness, justice and public confidence in the law find no place here.
	My final point is that what language there is in the Bill is the language of the Treasury. It is business-speak: "efficiency", "effectiveness", "the business of the courts", "appropriate services". I am afraid to say that too much legislation passing through this place in this era is Treasury driven. The great mantra of this Government seems to be "efficiency and effectiveness". They are meaningless words. They allow to be imported into them precisely what the Government want. I feel very strongly—as I sense do other Members of the Committee—that whatever else we do, we should start on the right foot and include the words in my amendment, or others like them, on the face of the Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 9, at end insert "in both rural and urban areas"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think it is appropriate that I test the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 55.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the House be again in Committee at 9.11 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Charities

Lord Patten: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to create a charities ombudsman.
	My Lords, I wish to ask the Government why there is not a charities ombudsman. I make it clear at the outset of the debate that I do not like endless interference, over-regulation and regulators as a matter of principle, but, alas, they are part of the way in which we live now. It has long struck me as an oddity that there is an institutional asymmetry, in that there is someone who can act in the role of ombudsman over the actions of the Charity Commission in the person of the distinguished independent complaints reviewer, Mrs Jodi Berg, but there is no one to whom individuals may turn to complain or to seek redress over the actions of individual charities.
	Mrs Berg points out in her most recent annual report that the Charity Commission is a regulatory body with wide and far-reaching powers but that the use of those powers would generally be disproportionate in most cases of complaint.
	I had some valuable discussions with Mrs Berg about this issue in the autumn, and then later with the chief charity commissioner, Mr John Stoker, who was good enough to talk to me about it. He told me, to my pleasant surprise, that he had come to the same view that I had come to—that we needed an independent ombudsman concerned with charities—and that I should look out for an expression of this view in the commission's response to the Government Strategy Unit's report entitled, Private Action, Public Benefit.
	Well, I duly looked out and not long before Christmas the response appeared. It said:
	"The Commission believes that the opportunity should be taken to strengthen the accountability of charities ... We believe in particular that there is a place for a charity ombudsman".
	The commission went on to observe of its own powers:
	"They are not designed, and they are not well-adapted, for use to give redress where a charity has fallen short of acceptable standards of administration in a single case or in its dealings with a particular individual".
	I certainly say, "Hear, hear", to that. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will sense that my next sentence will be that there is a vacuum here that we are looking for him to fill.
	Charities are an important part of our national life. Most charities do excellent work most of the time, but there have been well-reported lapses. Some charities, such as the NSPCC, have duties laid on them by statute. Some, such as the National Trust, have been set up by Act of Parliament. A number of charities—such as the National Trust, which is the nation's largest landowner—have become very big business. Others have become major campaigning bodies, sometimes with a covert or overt political slant. Many of the bigger charities receive substantial grants from public funds.
	All that growth has meant that there are some big charitable bureaucracies as well. There are charities with large staffs and highly paid chief executives. Like all bureaucracies, alas, they can sometimes become a bit unresponsive—not all the time, but some of the time. That has led to a lot of frustration and complaints. The complaints fall into two categories: first, broad-brush complaints based on a dislike of a charity's national policies and, secondly, the complaints of aggrieved people who do not feel that they have an avenue of redress.
	In the former class, with regard to the big issues that catch the public attention and have an impact on a charity's national perception, there have been several well-known scandals. The wise counsel of a charities ombudsman might, for example, have prevented the eccentric and unseemly shenanigans within the RSPCA over the recent appointment of a chief executive to that body or the extremely undesirable electoral practices of the National Trust.
	The National Trust has already been widely criticised in that context by several speakers in your Lordships' House in previous debates. I am told that the corporate governance of the National Trust is going to be subject to a forthcoming report, which will be conducted inside the trust, come from the trust and report to the trust. Some people believe that it is going to be a whitewash, but I hope that that is not the case.
	We might also cite the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, whose behaviour my noble friend Lord Blake, who cannot be with us this evening, has asked me specifically to tell the House gives him considerable cause for concern.
	All three of the charities to which I have referred have been widely criticised for their attitudes to the countryside, to country people and sometimes to their tenants. They have also been criticised for their attitude to country sports—the last being an issue over which I really can take an objective view as I am not a participant in any of them.
	At the local individual level, there are examples of charities allegedly behaving in an uncaring way to tenants or to neighbours of their properties and activities. With most charities being run from urban head offices, it has been difficult for country people in particular to get their voices heard. We might take, for example, the local residents in and around the Golden Cap estate area in Dorset. In that case, and the scandal connected with it, the National Trust was remote and in London and behaved with an hauteur towards local people that was worthy of some 18th century Whig magnate. The trust did not understand the relationship between those people and the management of local land.
	Having aired some criticisms, what can be done? First, the Government should listen to the advice that they have been given by the Independent Complaints Reviewer and the Charity Commission and set up as soon as possible an independent ombudsman scheme. A good model for that is the housing associations' independent housing ombudsman scheme for tenants.
	The new scheme for the charities ombudsman should be a statutory one. It should be funded by a graduated de minimis levy, as is the case with the housing association scheme. That would enable it to look into complaints of maladministration exactly as though the charity were a public body, which is the right way of doing it. The ombudsman could thus provide an avenue of complaint and in some cases recommend a change of policy or order compensation.
	Best of all, behind the scenes, by good advice, a body such as a charities ombudsman could give great help to those that have fallen below normal high standards in charities—to which I pay tribute—through oversight or inadvertence. Of course, I would also look to a charities ombudsman to report annually. It is worth while reflecting on what Mrs Berg told me. She wisely observed that responding to complaints can be a very good way for organisations to learn about themselves and how they behave and how they proceed.
	In addition, I think that the charities world could usefully learn from the corporate sector in dealing with alleged abuses and governance issues. In the corporate sector, we have had the Cadbury report, the Greenbury report and the Turnbull report, as well as today's report into non-executive directors and their role issued by Mr Higgs. So we now have a combined code for how publicly listed companies should behave. Equally, charities should develop a combined code for charities themselves modelled on that process, so that there is transparency, regularity, predictability and certainty in their behaviour. On the farther horizons, the larger of our charities—which play such an important role in our public life, and all of which I hope seek to observe the crucial seven Nolan principles—may well have to come under the remit of a committee on standards in public life. They are effectively in public life and supported by public money and should behave in the best possible way.
	As I come to the end of the 10 minutes allotted to me, I know that the Minister, with his reputation, will seek in the 12 minutes allotted to him to find at least a minute to answer one specific question. Do the Government intend to promote the concept of a charities ombudsman? If not, why not?

Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, in the four minutes allotted to the rest of us, it is very difficult to say anything very coherent or compelling. However, I am sure that we will all be very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has raised this important topic.
	I should declare some non-remunerative interests because I think that they are important to the way in which my argument develops. First, I am the chairman of the trustee board of two charities. One is a national charity, Centrepoint, which provides accommodation and services for homeless young people not only in London but across the country. More locally, I am chairman of the board of trustees of Hope, which raises money for research in Southampton University medical school. More importantly in this context, however, I have just finished five years as president of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, a job that I am very pleased to have passed over to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who is a member of the Front Bench opposite. I hope that she enjoys the job as much as I have.
	Although I think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, are impressive, I do not find them wholly convincing. I should like to try briefly to explain why, and this reflects many of the discussions that we have had in my time at the NCVO. I think we believe that, at least at this stage, a sharpening up of the role of the Charity Commission and the regulatory framework of charities, in addition to what is going on within the charity world and the voluntary sector themselves, is sufficient and that to go for an ombudsman is to go too far. Of course, it is the role of the Charity Commission as a regulator to pursue cases where a charity breaches charity law. In that context, we cannot see the benefit to the public of both a regulator and an ombudsman.
	What would an ombudsman do? An ombudsman would monitor or intervene in "unacceptable standards of administration", a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned. However, I think that there are lots of ways in which this can already be done without the ombudsman. I cite the various charities in which I am involved. If the medical charity gave money to a scheme that had not been externally peer reviewed, we would fall foul of the Association of Medical Research Charities, which is essentially the Kitemark of excellence in the medical field. If Centrepoint behaves badly towards its tenants and clients, they can present their case to the internal complaints procedure within Centrepoint, to the Housing Corporation or to local authorities with which Centrepoint has concluded contracts. All kinds of horizontal arrangements surround the behaviour of charities as opposed to a vertical arrangement with an ombudsman.
	The NCVO has played a major role in the issue of transparency. When I was president of that body many discussions were held and various reports were produced to try to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the way accounts are delivered to boards of trustees and in the way they are publicised and so on. We are keen to develop best practice in that field. We believe that it is possible to improve methods of regulation and fundraising, partly through greater transparency of accounts. The Institute of Fundraising has made some interesting proposals with regard to a co-regulatory mechanism for regulating fundraising which would comprise people with experience of fundraising but would be chaired by a lay person. Complaints could be made to that body.
	The important point to emphasise is that the Charity Commission needs to be strengthened and to stick to its main function of regulating charities—that needs to be clear and obvious—and not be so much involved in advising charities. It has a slightly mixed role in that respect at present which does not do it a lot of good. I refer to the combination of an enhanced capacity for the Charity Commission and the reform that is already taking place in the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector has links with local authorities. I refer to the medical research charities in that respect. Such matters can impose constraints on the behaviour of charities. Given the intermeshing of the role of the Charity Commission and that of the voluntary sector, I do not think that we need an ombudsman at this stage.

Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the debate although I may go a little wider than the Question.
	The charities sector is of tremendous importance to the country's economic and social well-being. It is a sector which is continuing to grow. I note that in the year 2000-01 the Charity Commission registered 6,000 new charities. I also note that about 2,000 applications did not proceed to registration. The reasons for that do not appear to me to have been recorded.
	It seems to me of central importance that there should be an accessible, affordable and speedy means of appealing against the decisions of the Charity Commissioners or of registered charity trustees where the complainant reasonably believes that the decision is not in the best interests of the charity.
	One accepts that historically there has been a culture of the Charity Commission paying inadequate attention to complaints against itself. That is brought out in reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. But in fairness to the Charity Commission, in the past two or three years there have been improvements, which have already been referred to. The Charity Commission has introduced an internal procedure to examine complaints and also an external review by the independent complaints reviewer.
	I am also mindful that in addition there is the combined mediation service established by the Centre for Dispute Resolution and the NCVO to resolve disputes within a charity. To complete the picture, although I am not sure how each part of the picture fits together, we have a Parliamentary Ombudsman who is also authorised to examine complaints which fall within the limit of his authority.
	A concern that has not been mentioned is the difficulty that arises where a charity or beneficiary believes that the commissioners have used or misused their powers. There is no means of reviewing that decision, except by the High Court route, provided that the authority of the commissioners or a Chancery judge has been obtained.
	That arrangement gives rise to many complaints, because the overwhelming majority of registered charities have an annual gross income of no more than £10,000. That means that the path to court is closed for many charities, which tends to offend one's sense of fairness and justice.
	For the reasons given by the previous speakers, it is important to consider where we go from here. The proposal that there be an ombudsman for charities certainly has its attractions. The Parliamentary Ombudsman already investigates some complaints, so there is precedent. However, I am not so sure that the ombudsman for charities would have the resources to examine the exceedingly complex issues sometimes involved in the commissioners' exercise of their statutory powers.
	Nevertheless, I am among those who hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government intend to introduce, possibly as part of the reform of the governance of the voluntary sector, a better way to resolve disputes within the charities sector. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issue.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to look at this important issue. My interests are that I chair three charities, am a trustee of two others and am a member of a number of others and have been for some years.
	There are two groups of problems. Smaller charities have problems in that the Charity Commission's rules can often be applied in too bureaucratic and intrusive a manner. Quite recently, I had a problem in one of my small charities, in that we wanted to take out indemnity insurance. As noble Lords will know, charity trustees have unlimited liability, unlike directors, so it seemed prudent and our professional advisers advised us to do it. The commission told us that that was an inappropriate use of charity funds.
	That may or may not be so, but the reality is that it is a serious disincentive to trustees' taking on a charity, which is one of the most important things nowadays. It is difficult to get people to be trustees of very small charities and do enormous amounts of work. If they have to take huge financial risks for no pay, it will become even more difficult. There is a danger that the commission, by sticking too tightly to the very detailed rules on small charities, will hamper them. I would like to see a more supportive role from the commission.
	That is not the same for some of the larger charities. My noble friend talked about the National Trust and the RSPCA, of both of which I am a member. They are important charities, because they are both virtually national institutions and are in a great deal of trouble. They have been for some time, and there is nothing controversial about saying so.
	Large charities can be very rich and therefore very powerful. Most of them are now democratic. Rather like most democratic institutions in the western world, their members or electors, as it were, are a little lazy. In charity terms, it is quite easy to get involved and take them over. Certainly, parts of the council and the chairman of the National Trust have manipulated the electoral process—perhaps with a very small "m"—to control it. In a way, they did so to try to avoid a political problem, but in that case they walked into another political problem. That is no way for a large national charity to behave. We have previously discussed that in your Lordships' House. I remember before that debate that those of us who were due to speak were all courted by the director-general: we all got telephone calls and letters asking whether we should like to meet. I very much wanted to meet the director-general of the National Trust as soon as the debate was over but I am afraid that the director-general declined to return my telephone calls. That sort of arrogance in a large institution is very dangerous and unattractive.
	The RSPCA raises a rather different problem. It has an immense amount of money and, not unreasonably, it is allowed to lobby politically. It therefore became a target and a small group of activists has taken it over to the detriment of the central charitable objectives of the organisation and is leading it along a difficult and dangerous path. That is very worrying; it has caused splits in the council and between professional staff and the council and there has been much unhappiness about the choice of the new director-general, which was clearly an awful mess. That was a bad way for it to conduct its affairs. What is important is the fact that the Charity Commission knows that and has been approached but has seemingly been unable to do anything about it; it has been unable to deal with the problem.
	I do not know whether the solution to those problems involves a charitable ombudsman or, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, improving the abilities of the Charity Commission to take such actions. He may well be right; I was very interested in what he said, as I was by my the remarks of my noble friend Lord Patten. I make it clear that at the smaller and the larger levels there is a significant problem, which does not appear to be going away. Currently, whatever the Charity Commission can do, it is not doing it. The problem must be addressed. I look forward to the Minister telling us what the Government will do to address the problem.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the debate and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for instigating it. I also declare an interest as the chair of the Andrea Adams Trust.
	I speak with a background knowledge that I gained when working with those members of my union—MSF, now Amicus—who work in the voluntary sector, including charities. The great strength of that sector is its diversity. Most who work in it do so because of their genuine commitment to their charity. Those workers are dedicated and hard working and are often among the lower paid in the workforce.
	Those who work in the charity sector recognise that there is room for change in that sector. The need to modernise the way in which charities are managed and organised is recognised. Charities need constantly to renew standards, to become more accountable, more transparent and thereby more effective. Charity workers recognise that currently the Charity Commission, which gives such welcome support to charities, cannot cover all of the areas of complaint that arise. It may not be able to investigate complaints by individuals adequately. For example, it cannot investigate service users, user groups or supporters groups; the policies of the charity or disputes about refusal or removal of membership; or the use of community facilities or the terms that apply to the use of a charity's facilities.
	It is against that background that the appointment of an ombudsman to adjudicate when an individual believes that his or her complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved has arisen. Those who support an ombudsman believe that he or she would prove to be fairer, more accountable, more transparent and capable of redressing all complaints and thereby would be more effective. Those who oppose it believe that such an appointment would be unnecessary and that it would add no value to the current or future regulation of charities.
	There are formidable organisations on both sides of the debate. As has been said, the Charity Commission supports the concept of an ombudsman, believing that such an appointment would be welcomed by the public, whose perception of openness and fairness of any procedure is vital. On the other hand, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations opposes the appointment of an ombudsman. It is the umbrella body in the voluntary sector, to which the majority of voluntary organisations belong, and it describes itself as,
	"the voice of the voluntary sector".
	The NCVO believes that it would act as a further layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. It cannot see the benefit to the public of having both a regulator and an ombudsman.
	The NCVO stresses that it is committed to raising standards in the voluntary sector and to making charities more effective, more accountable and more transparent. To that end, the NCVO is undertaking a programme of work to develop performance management mechanisms, along with others in the sector, including the Charity Commission.
	I suggest that some questions need to be answered. For example, are there enough complaints to justify an ombudsman; how much would such an appointment cost, and can the cost be justified; would an ombudsman be seen as more independent than the current procedure; and are there other ways of bridging the current gaps—for example, by extending the powers of the Charity Commission?
	Whatever the decisions taken in the future, I ask the Minister to ensure that the views of those working in the voluntary sector are listened to so that any moves forward can be generally supported.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, like others, I declare interests, both as a former chairman of the Susie Lamplugh Trust and as a trustee and member of a number of other charities. I also have direct experience of ombudsman schemes, having chaired the independent council of one of them—that for estate agents—as a result of which I am a strong supporter of ombudsmen generally. I strongly support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for an ombudsman in this area.
	In my experience, legitimate complaints about the way that charities conduct themselves not unusually fall outside the remit of the Charity Commission. When that happens, redress lies either through the charity's own governance procedures, which have sometimes proved to be woefully unsatisfactory, or through the courts and litigation, which is a drain on the financial resources of the charity itself and may well be beyond the means of people with a valid complaint.
	By contrast, an ombudsman scheme could provide an independent, relatively simple, inexpensive and swift alternative dispute resolution procedure. Additionally, by providing guidance through, for example, codes of practice, an ombudsman could do a great deal to improve standards of trusteeship generally.
	Two of the charities of which I am a member, although not a trustee, have been mentioned. Both are examples which have led me to believe that there is a need for such an ombudsman. One is the National Trust, and something has already been said about what has happened there. It has taken five years of hard work by a group of determined members to expose the way that the electoral system of the trust was being, as I believe, misused by the chairman, who is shortly to retire. At the end of that time, the trust no longer seeks to defend that position and has set up a review of its own governance, of which we have guarded hopes.
	But how much better, quicker and less damaging to the trust it would have been had there been an independent ombudsman. He would have been able to examine all the material concerning the complaints, including that which is still being withheld from members, despite continuing requests. The matter could have been resolved years ago had there been such a scheme in place.
	I am also concerned, as others are, about the RSPCA, of which I am also a member. Britain's number one animal welfare charity has a history of superb work, with a vast amount that needs to be done. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the society's current campaign to ban hunting—it is little secret that, as a supporter of hunting and president of the Countryside Alliance, I do not—the way that the council has begun to refuse membership to those who differ on that single issue of its policy, has expelled an acknowledged equestrian expert and former council member, Mr Richard Meade, from membership and has imposed increasingly stringent conditions for council candidature has caused the quality of those standing for council in terms of relevant experience and expertise, with some notable exceptions, to fall way below what is required by a charity of this importance.
	The continued and, indeed, increasing emphasis on political campaigning contrasts unfortunately with the closure of welfare facilities, a worryingly small membership, damaging internal disputes and a major budget deficit. All that is causing serious concern to members and staff alike, not to mention the damage to the ability of the RSPCA to perform its essential role as effectively as possible.
	The Charity Commission has so far proved either unwilling or unable to help. Surely, an ombudsman scheme for charities could be beneficial not only to ensure that complaints are properly investigated and upheld where justified, but also to enable charities to do a better job. Let us have one, and as soon as possible.

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for bringing this subject for debate today. I declare my interest as chairman of the Ethnic Minority Foundation and as a trustee of a number of other charities in the United Kingdom.
	I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that within the charities sector there are mainly two divisions. The first is that of voluntary organisations which deliver services to the communities, and the second, those charities which provide grants and funding. These trusts and foundations are the main funders, along with local and central government, to the sector as a whole.
	Having worked in the sector for over 20 years both as a grant giver and grant taker, I have come to realise that it is not a level playing field for those who seek grants. I have often debated in my own mind as to where the grant-giving charities would be if the grant takers decided not to apply for grants. The sole reason for existence of a grant-giving trust is to give grants for charitable causes. Therefore, their main or only customers are the other part of the charity sector which applies for funding.
	The Charity Commission is a regulatory body which provides the legal framework for all registered charities and plays a useful part for the sector. It has no authority to interfere in the work of the grant-giving trusts and foundations, particularly as to which charities should be given grants. Unlike government departments such as the Active Community Unit at the Home Office or the community fund, which are both open to scrutiny by Parliament and are doing, perhaps I may be permitted to say, an excellent job in their grant-giving programmes, the trusts and foundations are a law unto themselves.
	I approach this subject from the direction which says that the trusts and foundations are distributing part-public funding. All income from their fundraising or endowments is tax free. This means that some 30 or 40 per cent of their funding is public money.
	I emphasise that there are many good grant-giving trusts and foundations which do an excellent job in their grant-giving work. They are open and transparent and have outside trustees and grant-giving committee members. But my experience has shown that there are some—I am glad to say not many—whose grant-giving processes are not fair, clear or transparent. In some cases the old boy network syndrome rides supreme. The words one occasionally hears are, "We are the grant-givers. Our decision is final and not subject to any review".
	It is precisely for that reason and to remove that unfairness that there is a need for a charities ombudsman to whom complaints can be lodged by those grant applicants who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Currently, there is no redress for them. There may be other reasons why there should be an ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will respond to this particular requirement in the charities sector so that the trusts and foundations become more accountable.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend on introducing the debate. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it seems entirely appropriate that this short debate takes place in advance of a two-day debate on Lords reform. It gives a quintessential illustration of the quality that this House can bring to a subject. It has been a great privilege to listen to the debate so far. The depth of experience among noble Lords has been impressive. I declare a modest interest as a patron president involved in certain charities.
	I want to talk of my experience. As a Minister I had the responsibility of allocating funds to charities and voluntary bodies. It came as a slight shock sometimes to discover what was classified as a charity and the kind of people who were applying for funds. My noble friend referred to the "great bureaucracies". One got the impression from some of them that their main purpose was to keep themselves in employment and that public funds paid a major part in that achievement.
	There has been a significant improvement in checking up on the amount of money used in the administration of some charities to try to ensure that the main body of funding goes to their objectives.
	I am impressed by the work done by the Strategy Unit, which produced a very important document in connection with the debate, and the points that it made. It deals with the issue of bureaucracy. It deals also with the importance of need. I am inclined towards appointing an ombudsman, but I recognise that something needs to be done.
	I saw one extreme example of how a charity can be misused during my time in Northern Ireland. I spent a great deal of time trying to tell decent god-fearing Americans, who thought they were giving charitable funds towards helping decent god-fearing Irishmen, that in fact their funds were going straight into the procurement of weapons for terrorist activities. That is an extreme example, but it is a warning that unless there is proper control and monitoring of what happens, it is very easy for some of these charities to go badly off the rails.
	It is particularly worrying because a substantial part of some charities' income comes from legacies and the donors are not in a very good position to ensure that the objectives are being properly observed.
	I was interested that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the RSPCA. I had some constituency involvement in that. I represented a constituency where the issues of hunting became quite strongly felt and in which the RSPCA were much involved. I had total support for the RSPCA. My understanding was that its objectives were to promote kindness and to prevent or suppress cruelty to animals. I became concerned to find that this admirable and long-established charity suddenly seemed to be taking a rather divergent path in certain areas. One noticed—rather parallel to some problems occurring in the Labour Party called "entryism"—that it seemed to have been infiltrated and, as I understand the current chairman, happy to be called Britain's leading animal rights activist.
	We know that the animal rights connotation is rather different. Apparently, it was opposed to the keeping of pets and to animal husbandry. It is absolutely entitled to hold those views, but it is not entitled to receive donations from a lot of people on an entirely different agenda. Many pet owners are the biggest supporters of the RSPCA, which shows how far an organisation can diverge. It is certainly not entitled to receive tax relief.
	This difficult subject illustrates, because it is the warning that must exist in many other areas in the charitable programme, that there needs to be better monitoring, whether by an ombudsman or by more active involvement of the Charity Commission, I certainly think that action needs to be taken.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for this "oh too brief" debate, and in four minutes I shall try to make a few useful points.
	I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield—which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen—that no clear case has been made for the ombudsman scheme for charities and that the Charity Commission might be given an additional remit to take up the slight vacuum that exists at present between the commissioners and the independent complaints reviewer.
	One needs to proceed extremely cautiously before creating another piece of bureaucracy, however benign it is supposed to be and however much it is designed to help the sector. We forget at our peril that 99 per cent of charities have no professional staff at all. Charities are the voluntary sector, which is astonishingly diverse. Comparisons with what is done in the private sector and reference to governance in the private sector are inappropriate in all but a few cases.
	We should also bear in mind that a great deal of frustration is evident these days because of the rising tide of bureaucracy. Some of that was caused by the Charities Acts 1992 and 1993, but a great deal more is in the pipeline if the Strategy Unit's report is to be implemented, with its 31 proposals for new legislation. It is too easy for us, while being properly concerned with the tiny number of abuses and always wanting things to be better, to forget that sometimes, in trying to make things better, we make them worse.
	With all the talk about better standards, trustee training, tests before people can become trustees and huge questionnaires to fill in and comply with before they can be registered, the evidence from the sector is that fewer and fewer people from what one used to call the lower classes are now thought fit to take their places as trustees of small charities. That is tragic. Many people now feel a sense of incompetence about doing the job of trustee. It is not a magic job. It requires knowledge of the problems, nearness to mother earth and compassion. That is one reason why I should proceed with the greatest caution towards a statutory scheme for an ombudsman.
	I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, suggested that the Charity Commissioners should remain more the policeman and less the friend and advisor. I take issue with him on that; their dual role is essential to their balanced impact on the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that there should be a better right to appeal. That is coming, if the Strategy Unit's proposal for a tribunal is implemented. Many people think that that would be an improvement.
	I noted that a good deal of concern was expressed about the large charities engaged with hunting, such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. If the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, really think that an ombudsman would solve that problem, they should think again. Only if there was direct impropriety could such intervention take place.
	If there is a membership battle royal, as some such charities have had, an ombudsman cannot come along, wave a little wand and say, "You have scored but they have not". It would be totally inappropriate for issues of policy, which are often keenly felt and strongly fought in membership charities, to be the subject of purported resolution by an outside referee called an ombudsman. Such things must work their way out organically and naturally.
	So I do not rule out an ombudsman, but the case is not nearly proven. Much more work and consultation must take place before one could be established, bearing in mind that the independent complaints reviewer handled only 43 complaints in year one and 31 in the nine months to last August. As I said, it is not altogether out of the question to give the Charity Commissioners more scope.
	Lastly, in this age of trustlessness, we should take note of the remarkable level of honesty, propriety and selflessness that continues to characterise the charity sector and be cautious about intruding on it.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I begin by joining other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Patten on having given us the chance to discuss this important matter and having laid out such a powerful case. That charities occupy a special place in all our minds is evidenced by the wide range of speakers from all parts of the House to whom we have had the pleasure of listening.
	I have direct experience of establishing an ombudsman scheme, and there may be some read across to this debate. I was a founder director of the Securities and Investments Board, the first statutory financial regulator, and subsequently a director of the Securities and Futures Authority, which regulated City firms.
	Although the main thrust of our work was to oversee firms, we received complaints from members of the public. Broadly speaking, the complaints could be seen as arising from three main areas: inadvertence, incompetence and malice aforethought. If there was malice aforethought—deliberate malfeasance—it was an issue for the regulator. The same applied, largely but not entirely, to incompetence. Such cases often required re-training, as opposed to punishment. Inadvertent errors were hardly part of the regulator's remit. "Errare humanum est", my Latin teacher used to tell me. That did not mean, however, that the individual concerned felt any less strongly about what had happened to him or her. It was out of that debate that the financial services ombudsmen were created. They have proved outstandingly successful.
	What were the key elements in the success of the schemes? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, they were quick. Taking too long a time meant that problems would fester. The systems were simple, non-legalistic and independent. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, the whitewash was always a danger. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and to the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, that with an insider regulator, there is always that concern. Lastly, the schemes were cheap, in the sense that they were free to people who sought to complain. Sometimes, however, one wondered whether it would be better to have a small payment in order to deter the compulsive complainant.
	Those are the powerful arguments in favour of an ombudsman. What were the points against? First, there was the problem of the interface with statute law, particularly as regards insurance and the vitiation of insurance. Many complainants look only for someone to say, "I'm sorry. We got it wrong". In the modern world, those are difficult words to utter because of the insurance implications. If someone admits a mistake and the complainant decides to sue, that person's indemnity insurance will almost certainly be nullified.
	Secondly, there was the problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Mancroft—the "one size fits all" approach. The range in the scale of charities is vast, as was made clear in the Strategy Unit report. Can we devise a scheme that encompasses that range, without being too superficial, at one end of the scale, and too bureaucratic, at the other? Thirdly, finally and most importantly, many of the complaints to an ombudsman will come from the volunteers in the charities. They will have a close and, at times, emotion-packed relationship with the charity in question. Will they be prepared to accept the implications of an adverse decision by an ombudsman, no matter how reasonable or well founded?
	I suspect that such points can be addressed in further debate. In the mean time, the House must be grateful to my noble friend for having initiated a discussion of this important aspect of an important sector of our national life. We look forward to hearing the Government's response.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to declare an interest that I failed to declare at the start of my speech. I am a solicitor in practice in the charity field and trustee of several charities.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the approximately seven minutes left to me, I shall try to deal with what has been an excellent and important debate. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating it. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Parliamentary Choir and a member of the RSPB.
	The central question is the nature of the problem or problems. In one respect—perhaps in many—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is right. We have about 19 ombudsmen, but none of them focuses specifically or solely on the charities themselves. That may be a problem, or it may not.
	We have heard a lot about the RSPCA, the National Trust and the RSPB. I shall not go into details, as I am not knowledgeable about what has been happening in those organisations, but I mark a central issue with which we must engage. The Charity Commission looks into complaints about unconstitutional practice within charities, as well as breaches of charity law. Therefore, if any of those organisations appear to have acted in unconstitutional matters, it is rightly a matter for the Charity Commission to investigate. They have a power and locus to do so.
	By comparison, ombudsmen are for complaints about poor administration causing harm or suffering to individuals. That is what they have always been, to date. I shall double-check, but I am sure that those are the terms of reference of the 19 ombudsmen that we have now. No doubt I shall reflect on this, but on first flush the complaints and issues raised concerning the RSPCA, the National Trust and the RSPB appear to fall into the first category—matters for the Charity Commission and whether there has been unconstitutional practice or not—rather than into the category of administration.
	To put it another way, although I take no view whatever on the previous examples, it seems that charities are entitled to take up a policy position subject to it being within the terms of their constitution and no doubt having had proper processes for reaching that position. Clearly, we shall need to reflect whether the examples which have been advanced fall within that ambit.
	Although it may irk some members, the RSPCA can refuse membership to those who do not agree with its position. As I understand it, subject to that being legitimate in terms of charity law, a charity can exclude from membership people opposed to its policies. Again, those processes must be carried out fairly.
	Where does this take us? First, we need to unpack the nature of the complaints we are discussing. Some complaints are clearly legitimate matters for the Charity Commission to investigate. Time does not allow me to define their scope, but clearly it has power and locus for some of the issues raised.
	Secondly, some complaints raised may get redress through other regulators—for example, through a whole range of bodies that regulate standards of conduct in public life. Again, time does not permit me to bore the House with more detail. There are a range of complaints which might be dealt with by other regulators in some cases.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is right in terms of his response to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In essence, the Strategy Unit review recommends the creation of a tribunal for the purposes that he advanced. The Government are considering those recommendations as part of the whole consultation exercise that is coming to a conclusion.
	Because we are debating ombudsmen, we should be concerned with issues of maladministration. The first question we should ask ourselves is: if there should be a case for an ombudsman to look at maladministration, not issues of policy with which we might or might not disagree, what are the options?
	There are probably five options: a new charity ombudsman; to give the function to one of the existing ombudsmen; to extend the function of the Charity Commission; to extend the remit to the independent complaints reviewer; or to ask the charitable sector to set up its own ombudsman scheme. If a convincing case was made for the scale and volume of complaints, there could be pros and cons for each of those options.
	There are other options available immediately. It is crucial that charities themselves have effective internal complaints procedures to deal with as many complaints as possible at source. That is a principle of basic good ombudsman procedure in the first instance. Clearly, trustees have a particular duty to act as long-stops in those processes and to take part in overseeing them.
	My next point is that a range of existing ombudsmen also have scope over charities. The Local Government Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Health Service Ombudsman and the Independent Housing Ombudsman can all intervene in charities when the charity is carrying out functions for local government, central government, in housing matters, and so forth. In certain circumstances, existing ombudsmen can investigate maladministration by a charity when it is carrying out functions for other bodies.
	I cannot go into the debate concerning the Independent Housing Ombudsman because I have only one minute left. Clearly, that was a particularly interesting example. It was set up with the support of the sector. What is interesting about the housing ombudsman's role is the scale of the bodies we are discussing, dealing with 1.75 million tenanted dwellings a year and therefore a big service business.
	I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on the point he made about grants. In conclusion, I shall instance where we would like to go forward on the matter. First, we have to obtain facts and evidence about the nature and scale of the problem. I say that in no criticism of the debate. We have to obtain some numbers in order to see the extent to which there are charities which are a legitimate discretion of the charity itself, although we might disagree with it. Secondly, we have to establish that they are legitimate and can be dealt with by the Charity Commission; thirdly, that other regulators can deal with the matter; and, fourthly, that other ombudsman can deal with it. When we have identified the scale of those categories, we are left with a fifth, which is the heart of the issue. How many are legitimate issues of potential maladministration which have no other home to go to? That is the nature of the reflections and analysis I shall be asking officials to undertake in conjunction with the Charity Commission.
	In the light of those discussions and that analysis, which may take a period of time, I shall have further discussion on these issues and no doubt it will be a privilege to respond to questions from this House. In conclusion, I commend the House for the stimulus to government thinking that the debate has provided.

Courts Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 10, after "services" insert "including information technology services"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. The purpose of these amendments is to make it clear that the appropriate services that should be provided for the effective work of the courts should include information technology services.
	Lord Justice Auld, in Chapter 8, paragraph 93, of his review, made the point that:
	"Modern information and communications technology could transform the ways in which each agency undertakes its separate function in the speed, reliability and efficiency with which data are processed and also in the manner of management of a prosecution from charge to disposal".
	At paragraph 94, he states: "That parts of the system are still, in the first decade of the 21st century, effectively relying,
	"on manual systems to support some of their key tasks is a public disgrace.
	At Second Reading, I listened with great care to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. He said:
	"Throughout England and Wales, courts are deprived of the technology which has been repeatedly promised and which should be at the heart of the civil justice reforms",
	to which he had referred in the main body of his speech. He went on to paint a picture which will concern us all. He said:
	"Those courts are struggling to provide an adequate service, relying on the loyalty of the judiciary and the staff. Whether they will be able to continue to achieve that is open to question".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 28.]
	Can the Minister therefore tell us where in the spending review of 2002 there is new money that is ring-fenced for the provision and development of IT in the civil justice system? I note that there is some new money on the criminal justice side, but even that seems to have been chopped. There is no money, it seems, for enabling applications, as they were called, despite the work undertaken on them.
	The picture painted by a lawyer to me—I am very much the layman—was that a train set was going to be built without the engine or coaches. Is it not true that the current state of play is that even the criminal courts will be left with systems which are well past their sell-by date, such as CREST, and that there has been a scrabble to upgrade systems, such as XHIBIT, to do things they were never designed to do? That hardly smacks of efficient and effective guardianship of the system, which we are supposed to see in Clause 1, especially at a time when in the criminal justice system the Home Office legislation is adding to requirements for the use of IT systems; for example, in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill which some Members of the Committee are suffering upstairs in Grand Committee. What consultations did the Lord Chancellor's Department have with the Home Office before clauses were inserted into the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill to extend the use of televisual links? What agreement has been reached about the resourcing of these?
	What news does the Minister have of progress with Libra? I read the sorry story of this in the January edition of the Magistrate. Although I am no longer a magistrate, as a life member of the association I still receive the magazine. The Committee will be aware that Libra is an attempt by the Lord Chancellor's Department to develop case management and administration systems for England and Wales. Apparently, the LCD cancelled the contract with its suppliers, Fujitsu, citing cost and timetable delays in developing new computer software. Can the Minister confirm that software development is now running nine months behind schedule and that the cost of the project is soaring? Has the LCD found a new developer for this software? If so, what is now the timetable for roll-out?
	What reason can the Minister give the Committee for having confidence that IT can provide the method by which the criminal and justice communities can work together effectively under the provisions of the Bill? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment is unnecessary. IT services will be included in the term "services". A reasonable interpretation of "appropriate services" includes information technology, and it is certainly our intention to provide such services.
	Let me make a general point before I go on to deal with specific points. From both the start of the Committee stage and at Second Reading my strong feeling has been that all noble Lords wish to see the same kind of improvement and development. Whatever comments I may make in Committee, I wish to assure noble Lords that everything that is said will be taken into account and fully considered before we come back on Report. To do otherwise would not do justice to the import that everyone involved in the Bill wishes to achieve. I want to assure the Committee that we have that very much in mind.
	The SR2002 funding settlement has been committed to the roll-out of a modern IT infrastructure across all Crown Court centres; the roll-out of the LCD led, cross-CJS XHIBIT initiative, which uses modern technology to share, in real time, court hearing information across all in the criminal justice service who need to make use of it—the evaluation of the first pilot has shown very significant benefits across the CJS by allowing all the many parties involved in hearings to work more effectively together; and the roll-out of a national standard case management application across all magistrates' courts.
	The noble Baroness asked whether this spending will be ring fenced. I can give her no such assurance. We are trying to ensure that all needs are fully met. A modern IT infrastructure has been rolled-out, through Libra, to more than 80 per cent of magistrates' courts, and this is on target for completion this year; work, which will be complete this year, is underway on the roll-out of prison to court video links to 30 of the largest Crown Court centres; and more than 50 per cent of all money claims through the civil courts are already issued electronically. So the Internet-based money claim on-line service, which has had a positive reception from many groups—including, for example, the Consumers' Association—allows all aspects of a money claim to be carried out on-line, all the way through to the sending-in of bailiffs. Video links for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are now installed and working in all Crown Court centres.
	This is a very wide, comprehensive IT programme. We want to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it responds to the new system that we hope will come into being as a result of the Courts Bill to make it more efficient and effective.
	I know that reference has already been made to the use of the words "efficiency" and "effectiveness", but citizens of this country who go to the courts very much want to have an efficient and effective system that actually works. Those words are perfectly fine to describe the aspirations of what many individuals wish to see in terms of service provision.

Lord Renton: One always respects what the noble Baroness says, but we are dealing here with her description of "appropriate services". Is she prepared to say definitely that that would include information technology?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have said that it will include information technology. We want to develop the most appropriate services to meet the modern needs of courts. The noble Lord will know, for instance, that in the commercial court we have used IT extensively. We shall need to continue to do so, and to explore the use of IT more and more if we are to keep pace with competitors in the international market.

Lord Renton: That is how I understood the noble Baroness's opening remarks.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her response, although I am somewhat disappointed with parts of it. I am grateful to her for saying that the Government will examine some or all of these matters seriously between Committee and Report. I shall certainly do so with regard to these amendments.
	In response to my question about SR2002 with regard to ring-fenced money, the Minister said that no such assurance could be given because the Government wanted to ensure that all needs were met. I certainly wish to ensure that all needs are met. I believe that it can be done with ring-fenced money. The Minister did not answer my question in terms of directing me to where there is new money for this in the budget. Perhaps she will write to me on the matter between now and Report. She nods, and I am grateful to her for that.
	I do not think that the Minister addressed all my questions on Libra. I shall read her replies carefully. Members of the Committee who have read the newspapers over the past months will have been concerned to see some of the loopholes in the provision of IT. My noble friend Lady Seccombe reminded me a moment ago of the issue at Peterborough court, where a case had to be adjourned to a magistrates' court where the IT was in place, whereas it was not in place in Peterborough court itself. There are indeed causes for concern over IT in a world in which—the Minister is right—we have to show ourselves to be leaders. The judicial system must have credibility. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) For the avoidance of doubt, the report in subsection (4) shall include a report on the operation of the courts agency."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6.
	As I pointed out at Second Reading, one of the biggest problems with the Bill is that many important matters are not written into it. We are being asked to write a blank cheque for the Lord Chancellor to do as he or she pleases at some future date.
	So, although I can give a welcome to the objectives set out in Clause 1—although I believe that they need to be improved upon, as was explained earlier—I believe that a great deal is left out of the Bill that needs to be included in it before we can possibly judge whether or not it will achieve the laudable objectives set out by the Government.
	The most obvious example of the missing link is the failure to provide information about the courts agency which the Lord Chancellor intends to establish to take over the work of both the court services and the magistrates' courts.
	I was grateful to the Minister for the letter that she was kind enough to write to Members of the Committee over the Christmas period. It was a lengthy letter and she had obviously applied a great deal of care and attention, as had her officials, to addressing as many of the questions as possible at that stage. I note that a couple of questions of mine were completely and utterly ignored. I have no problem with that. It means, of course, that I now have the greater opportunity to tease them out at a later stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House—be that as it may.
	The Minister said in her letter that the Government would,
	"publish guidelines as swiftly as possible after consultation".
	The question we must ask is: will that be after the Bill has left this House? If the Minister can assure us that it will be before it leaves the House, that will be most welcome.
	Amendment No. 5 simply requires an assurance from the Minister that the annual report will include a report on the operation of the courts agency. Without that, there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of the courts agency. Earlier this evening the Minister, in response to another group of amendments, indicated that the courts agency's operations would be within the operation of the report. So I hope that she can give us a straightforward assurance on those matters.
	The new clause that I have set out in Amendment No. 6 tries to raise all the questions one might ask about how a courts agency will operate. I tried to fill the gaps that the Government have left and provided them with a clause listing as much as I can think of that a courts agency should do. The clause places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to set up a courts agency to cover the administration of all courts except the House of Lords. That reflects paragraph 1 of the note that the Government helpfully placed in the Library before Christmas. In the same vein, I have tried to follow through the Government's note to the House by paraphrasing or copying directly into the clause what they told us they would do. I hope that they find it acceptable.
	So, from paragraph 5, I have copied the section on the chief executive, including in the clause that the Lord Chancellor can appoint a chief executive, and before doing so, consult those with the appropriate experience who may give him good advice. England and Wales will be divided up into areas managed by chief officers. They will work in partnership with the court administration councils, as set out in subsection (5). Subsection (6) states:
	"Where there is a dispute over proposals to open, close or relocate court-houses, the issue shall be referred to the Lord Chancellor; and in resolving the dispute the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the views of the court administration councils".
	That was pinched from paragraphs 21 to 23. I use the word "pinched" since the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is in his place, and I am trying to keep to straightforward language after his earlier treatise on the impenetrability of some words used by the Government in their drafting. I hope that what I have done so far represents good sense and good practice. Subsection (7) provides the obvious:
	"The Lord Chancellor shall by order publish guidelines setting out the good governance principles under which the courts agency shall operate".
	That was taken from paragraph 8 of the Government's document.
	So, does the picture I have painted of the courts agency accord with what the Government think will happen? If not, what have I left out? Have I included something that they feel would not appropriately be the duty of the courts agency? If so, what is it?
	I note that the letter the noble Baroness wrote to us over Christmas says that the new agency is non-statutory, and full details cannot be set out on the face of the statute. That is only because the Government have decided that is the case. Of course, I heed her words, so my amendment does not go into the detail of executive action or administration. What I have done, I hope, is set out wholly unobjectionable principles under which the Lord Chancellor and the courts agency shall act.
	I do not see why any of this needs to wait until the Government have consulted on the detail of how the agency will operate. We could get the clause onto the face of the Bill now. If not, I look forward to a good explanation from the Minister so that we can consider the matter between Committee and Report. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 6 is extremely important, and we on these Benches strongly support it. At present, we have magistrates' courts committees, which are statutory bodies. It is proposed that the administration of the magistrates' courts should now be turned over to the Court Service, reincarnated as the courts agency, which will have no statutory existence. That seems entirely wrong. Without any statutory reference to the courts agency, we have only half the picture. For instance, we now have the court administration councils. What will they do? We are told that the court administration council will liaise closely with the chief officer for the area for which it has responsibility. That chief officer will be part of the courts agency.
	We are told that the court administration council will be consulted about what is to be done within the strategic plan for that area, but nothing in the Bill tells us by whom it is to be consulted. It merely says that it will advise and make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor—not, of course, to the people to whom it actually will make the recommendations.
	We have nothing like the full picture here. We cannot have the full picture unless we have some statutory establishment of the courts agency. I see no reason why this should not be done. It is entirely a decision for the Government. It is perfectly practicable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has pointed out, to have a statutory authority for the operation of the courts agency. Without any statutory authority, we will end up with a situation as anomalous as having legislation for the collection of taxes that contains no reference to the Inland Revenue or legislation for the payment of benefits that contains no reference to the Benefits Agency.
	If we are to have a Bill that properly provides for the administration of the courts, it should not simply pretend that the Lord Chancellor is doing it all on his own. We should give statutory recognition to the body that will be carrying out the duties that are nominally carried out by the Lord Chancellor. That body is the courts agency. For that reason, I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the principle of the amendment, even if they do not accept the text of it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench, particularly on Amendment No. 6. Last week in this Chamber we debated a report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform dealing with the problem of Henry VIII clauses. I took the opportunity of that debate to introduce the problem of skeleton Bills, which have almost no substance but create the power to legislate by regulation.
	In this instance, we do not even have a skeleton. We know that there is to be a courts agency, but we know nothing about it. It does not exist in the Bill as drafted. There is nothing to indicate what it is for, what it is to do or how it is to work. Last week I used the description, "flying blind with very few instruments". In this case we have no instruments at all. We know that there will be a situation, but we have no knowledge of what it will be. That is not in the best interests of the Government, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or of this House. We should not pass legislation with that sort of lacuna in it. That is why I am happy to support my noble friend.
	The courts agency should be mentioned on the face of the Bill. There should be some basic outline of its purposes and functions and how it is to work.
	I hope that the Minister will find it possible at least to say that she will consider the principles of the amendment and whether they should be included in the Bill. If she wishes to take a totally negative view of it, we would have to take that as an indicator of the Government's view as to the possibility of changing the Bill. However, it would be far better that the Bill should be amended to a satisfactory form by agreement than that "amateurs" on Opposition Benches, who are not parliamentary draftsmen, should put clauses into the Bill that may not be perfectly satisfactory.
	The Bill is well intentioned, and I accept the intention, but there is not sufficient detail for us to pass a valid judgment on its acceptability and whether it will work. For that reason, the amendment should be supported.

Lord Waddington: It is a pity that the amendment should be debated so late in the evening. There is obviously a great deal to think about on the question of whether an agency such as the courts agency should have a statutory foundation. I freely concede that plenty of agencies have no statutory foundation, but that does not mean to say that we should follow that precedent now.
	With regard to the terms of the amendment, most people would agree that chief officers of the agency should be responsible for delivery of service in a particular area, with a duty to work closely with the courts administration councils. So much concern has been expressed about the abolition of the courts committees and the substitution of merely advisory bodies that there must be a case, in this particular instance, for having some statutory foundation for the courts agency that would put a particular responsibility on that agency to work closely with the courts administration councils. The Lord Chancellor should also have a statutory duty to pay regard to the courts administration councils, for precisely the same reason—because they are thought by so many people to be a poor substitute for the magistrates' courts committees, which actually had administrative responsibilities.
	As the noble Baroness must already fully understand, there is real concern about the disappearance of the magistrates' courts committees. There is a real risk that a courts agency that is not accountable to a local courts committee will not have the local expertise and will not take advice from those who do.
	The amendment is fully justified, although it may be said to be breaking new ground in giving some statutory foundation to the courts agency. It would allay the fears of so many people that public and local concerns will not always be taken into account by officials of an agency who may present themselves as being very remote, in the way in which the officials of magistrates' courts committees are not remote and clearly take account of local concerns.

Lord Borrie: Several of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has helpfully made are covered by Clause 5. Court administration councils will provide recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in relation to the various courts in,
	"the area for which the council is established".
	More importantly, from the noble Lord's point of view, the Lord Chancellor in discharging his duty must give due consideration to recommendations.
	I do not have a very strong view on the amendment as such. However, this Bill does not seem very different from the many Bills we see which provide that, "The Secretary of State shall do such and such", when in practice, as we all know, that means that, "The officials or executive agencies acting on behalf of the Secretary of State shall do such and such".
	The Government have made it known that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor means to establish an executive courts agency. The duties which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has set out seem to me very reasonable and clear. I should be surprised if we learn from my noble friend the Minister that it is intended that they should be something entirely different.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: In our earlier debate, I noted that the Minister said that the Bill was not a centralising measure but—I think I heard this right—an opportunity to get real local engagement in the administration of the magistrates' courts. Would that it were so.
	I disagree with my noble friend Lord Waddington only to the extent that he says that the amendment breaks new ground. I do not think that it does; I think that it is more accurately described as restoring already broken ground. We had local administration, and still have, in the magistrates' courts committees.

Lord Waddington: All I was saying is that to give statutory foundations to such an agency may be breaking new ground.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I accept that. However, the magistrates' courts committees which we currently have and which the Government find unsatisfactory do have statutory authority and backing. The courts agency is to be purely advisory. We do not know, and we are not told because it is to be non-statutory, anything about how it will work or who will be on it. As the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees pointed out, that is a circular argument. Having decided that the courts agency is to be non-statutory, the Government then say, "Because it is non-statutory, we cannot include on the face of the Bill how it will work, what its composition will be, what its powers will be and so on". The answer to that is that it does not need to be non-statutory.
	This may be regarded as heresy on my Front Bench, but still I shall say it. From time to time I have admired the present Government's commitment to transparency and to local devolvement of power. However, it is anything but transparent to treat the powers of the courts agency that they are about to create as non-statutory and to say, "Not even during the Bill's passage through Parliament shall we vouchsafe what its powers will be". As to local devolution of power, exactly the reverse is being achieved by getting rid of the magistrates' courts committees—which are locally based, locally empowered and locally legitimated—and replacing them with this shadowy substance.
	I strongly support what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said in support of Amendment No. 6. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will at least undertake to consider the thrust of the argument. I do not think that anyone is saying that the wording is necessarily perfect, but it is a vehicle for a thought and a concept which seem to me to be entirely valid.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the debate on Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he had placed in the Library,
	"a statement on the principles that will form the basis of the agencies framework document".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 15.]
	One therefore turns to that document to see whether there is any clarity in it. Far from there being clarity, it is full of precisely the verbiage and jargon about which I was complaining earlier. One favourable view of all this guff is that it covers muddled thinking and indecision. An unfavourable view is that it conceals the Government's intention in regard to the question that we are discussing at the moment; that is, to what degree will the agency be accountable to local views and to local democracy in any way?
	The statement of principles that I have before me states:
	"Local areas will be managed by agency chief officers, responsible for the delivery of services in their area. They will work in partnership with the Court Administration Councils, which will bring magistrates, judges and representatives of the local community, and people with knowledge of the court system to the table, to ensure that the agency is focussed on its customers and is meeting local needs".
	What nonsense that is. What table? What customers? What is the relationship to be? I continue:
	"We are clear about the key features the agency must have—clear lines of accountability for performance through ministers to Parliament; but with a strong local element—delegation to the frontline, local accountability and flexibility. We made a commitment in the White Paper to producing a blueprint in partnership with our stakeholders".
	Where did this language come from? I continue:
	"That work on the detailed design has started, and involves staff drawn from the Court Service and the magistrates' courts, the judiciary and stakeholders from the magistrates' courts community".
	I have never heard of the magistrates' courts community in my life. I have heard of other communities but never that one. It suggests an idea of all the magistrates' courts clustering together to exchange views. That is just a load of nonsense.
	In answer to my earlier question, the noble Baroness mentioned magistrates and the judiciary in connection with the term "stakeholders". But who are the stakeholders? I repeat that question. Can we please have a clear statement of what the agency is to do and how it is to work with local people and can we please have that placed upon the face of the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for not answering in my letter of December two of the issues that she raised. I must confess that I did not notice that we had left out anything. No discourtesy was intended. I am sure that we shall now trawl again to establish the lacunae and seek to plug them.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I do not wish to impose further trawling on the Minister and her officials. I shall contact her office tomorrow to let her know which of my amendments already tabled cover those lacunae.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am most grateful. We had hoped to be able to assist noble Lords by that letter and cover the points that had been raised.
	I hope also that Members of the Committee will have received a copy of my letter dated 17th January in which I set out, with what I hoped was a degree of clarity, the reasons and need for change, how the proposals were developed, comments about the court administration councils and the alternatives that have been raised, the role of the magistracy in the justice system and consultation. I respectfully invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to that letter in which I set out who the local stakeholders are and those who will be consulted.
	Of course, I heard what the noble Lord said in his charming way about guff and nonsense. If I may respectfully say so, the document is neither guff nor nonsense. The provisions are serious stuff indeed for the people who will be subject to them. It is our hope and aspiration that those who will work with us in partnership, and who have worked with us in partnership, will see the fruits of their labour. It does not befit any of us in this Chamber to deride or decry that partnership. Partnership is what it means; that is, working together with the groups who come before the courts, citizens advice bureaux, all those who work in the courts and courts' users by whom I mean representative groups together with members of the judiciary, members of the magistracy, members of the legal profession and all of those who regularly use the courts. It is their view on which we have had the privilege to rely, to try to fashion something of utility for the citizens of our country. I would not describe it as guff.
	I shall speak to the amendment with which we are seized this evening. Consistent with our intention to establish an executive agency to carry out the day-to-day running of the courts, the annual report of that agency will be laid before Parliament to satisfy the requirement in the clause. The annual report will give information about the business of all the courts, and will for the first time present performance information about the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in a single annual report, available for public and parliamentary scrutiny. It will also include corporate information about the agency itself.
	I shall reiterate the point to reassure the noble Baroness about our intentions. I hope that she will find that the amendment will not be necessary. The clause is in line with Section 1(12) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which currently requires the Lord Chancellor to report on the business of the courts, and under which the Court Service annual report is laid before Parliament.
	I commend the comments made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. If I may respectfully say so, he was absolutely right in how he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in terms of Amendment No. 6, to which I shall move.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. It captures accurately the arrangements that we intend to establish by administrative means. I do not object at all to her pinching them from our letters, which simply shows that we are of one mind. An executive agency will be headed by a chief executive, who will be accountable to the Lord Chancellor for the day-to-day running of the court administration. Local chief officers in each management area are to work in partnership with the local court administration council. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say partnership I mean working together and listening to one another. There will be clear procedures for making decisions about the court estate, decisions that are so important to users of the courts, and published guidelines will set out the requirements of good governance.
	We agree, therefore, with the spirit of the amendment, but we do not believe that the details are necessary, or appropriate in primary legislation. If, however, Members of the Committee require further reassurance, we will give further consideration as to how that might be provided. We would, for example, be happy to debate the arrangements for the new agency when they have been developed further, if parliamentary time allows.
	Let me comment on each subsection in turn. First, I shall deal with the obligation to establish an agency. Executive agencies are not creatures of statute. We have 127 UK agencies, none of which is a creature of statute. For instance, National Savings, Wilton Park conference centre, the Debt Management Office and the Benefits Agency—an agency of some considerable size—are not based in statute. A statute-based agency would depart not in a small way, but very greatly from all common practice. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was himself doubtless responsible for setting up many of those agencies. What he said about the fact that we will be departing from common practice was well said.
	When such agencies act, there is in law no delegation because the official's act or decision is constitutionally that of a Minister—the Carltona doctrine, as it is known. That is why the duty to give due consideration to the views of councils is imposed in Clause 5 on the Lord Chancellor, although in practice, as I have explained, councils will work, as other Members of the Committee said, with local civil servants.
	The new agency will be headed by a chief executive—a civil servant—who will be accountable to the Lord Chancellor for the performance of the agency. The amendment requires that the Lord Chancellor consults with persons having appropriate knowledge of the work of the courts before appointing a chief executive. There are established procedures for the appointment of senior civil servants which include consultation with interested parties. The appointment will also be governed by the Civil Service Commissioners' Rules, which require that a commissioner sit on the selection panel.
	The amendment requires that agency chief officers be appointed to manage the courts in local areas and that those chief officers should be under a duty to work in partnership with the court administration councils. Local chief officers will, under Carltona, be under the same obligation as the Lord Chancellor: to give due consideration to the recommendations of the councils. In practice, they will work in partnership with them but—

Lord Renton: I apologise for interrupting but this is an important matter. Will those officers have any statutory obligations among their duties?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There will be guidance about how those officers will work, which will be developed. I cannot say that that guidance will be prepared before the Bill leaves the House but we could make further clarificatory statements in light of the partial consultation.
	Those Members of the Committee who had the advantage of reading the letter and seeing the consultation that I outlined on page 4 will see that local consultation will be a key part of the overall consultation process. The process starts in earnest with a series of one-day discussion groups that the Lord Chancellor's Department has arranged across the country. Those groups will explore what a unified administration means and the administration in their part of the country, and representatives of courts users, the local magistracy—including MCC members—the judiciary and court staff will be invited to attend. The groups will consider issues such as how an appropriate local focus can be achieved on the councils. All of that consultation will go on but the guidance that we will provide and its detail will await the outcome of those broad consultations. Our intent is to get it right so that it works.
	I respectfully say that we will get it right only if we listen to local people, local agencies, local magistrates and local judges to find out from them what is right for them as opposed to what is right for us—those of us sitting in Whitehall or elsewhere.

Lord Goodhart: Does the Minister appreciate that the matter that concerns both Opposition parties is that the role of the court administration councils in the Bill is extremely weak? That is a matter of deep concern. We are told that the role of the court administration councils would be much more significant than it appears in the Bill and that they will be involved through partnership with the local chief officer in the way in which the administration of justice is carried out in their area. However, unless there is something in the Bill that explains that—one cannot explain it without reference to the courts agency—we will end up in the current position; that is, that the role that the Government intend the court administration councils to play is quite different from that given to them by statute.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says about the anxieties and about the need for clarity. An issue arises as to how we deal with that without, if I may respectfully say so, burdening the statute, which puts in place a rigid system that we would find difficult to use flexibly in the way that different local needs would demand.
	I understand the Committee's concern on this matter. We are anxious to see what, if anything, can be done to ensure that whatever guidance and so on is produced gives voice to that concern. Therefore, I reiterate what I said earlier: we shall listen carefully to everything said during the Committee stage about this and other issues to see how we can assuage the concerns that are genuinely held by a number of Members of the Committee.
	In practice, we shall have to deduce how the partnership will work. But the partnership will be created not by regulation but through the proper management of the organisation, its aims and objectives, its vision and its values and the training that it provides for staff.
	We have already made clear that the court estate is a key area in which the Lord Chancellor will welcome recommendations from the council. He will, as required by Clause 5, give them due consideration. I believe that the amendment goes no further than that.
	The agency framework document is the established means of setting out the agency's governance arrangements. It is a methodology that has proved its value in relation to the 127 other agencies that currently exist. There is no reason to believe that it will not be equally efficacious on this occasion.
	As I said, I understand the Committee's concern to know more about the new agency at this stage. I have undertaken to make available further information as soon as possible. However, it is essential that the new organisation is developed with the involvement of our stakeholders—for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I say in parenthesis that those are all the people to whom I referred in my answer earlier—and anyone else who has a genuine interest in the courts and therefore a stake in the administration of them. Those conversations will be most important.
	We have developed a series of events which are taking place between January and April to discuss these outstanding issues with the various parties. Those events will help us to develop a clearer picture of how the agency will be organised locally and nationally. I cannot emphasise how important—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has emphasised several times, in writing and in the House, that the Government are out to listen during the consultation period. What would happen if the consultees told the Government that they wanted the type of changes made to the Bill that are in this series of amendments?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As mentioned earlier, in deciding what we wish to achieve we have to take on board the recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld. Therefore, if, for example, the consultees said, "Actually, we want no change. We don't want a merging of the administration of the courts in the way that everyone has defined as being the best for the people of this country", it is unlikely that that would sway the Government to reject Lord Justice Auld's recommendations and to reject the comments made to us by many people who have to operate the system and who say that the system is crying out for unification.
	However, we shall of course take into account decisions concerning how the local areas should be managed, what size the councils should be, whether there should be consultative groups, what the structure should be, what the function should be and whether there should be a variation for urban, rural, semi-urban, semi-rural or suburban areas. We wish to have a unified system which for the first time deals not only with magistrates' courts—as important as they undoubtedly are—but brings the magistracy and the magistrates' courts into the wider family. In that way, the criminal, family and civil courts will work together in union for the benefit of the people of their area. That will give us locally delivered solutions for local people. We do not have that local element in the way we would aspire to have it right the way across the board. This is our opportunity to do that, and we shall do that by listening.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: When the noble Baroness admonishes me I feel like a recalcitrant pupil in the primary class. She explained much of the wording contained in the principles, as I would expect of her. However, I hope she does not think me cheeky if I ask her a specific question, which is related to the amendment. Let us suppose that there is a dispute between the local area manager after he has been consulting at the table with the courts administration council about the opening, closing or relocation of court houses. What happens then?
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, relied upon Clause 5. However, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart pointed out, the only power which the court administration council has on the face of the Bill in this area is to provide the Lord Chancellor with recommendations about how he should discharge his general duty in relation to various matters. What happens if there is a specific clash?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We hope to fashion an appeals structure so that everyone within that system knows what happens if there is a clash between any two parties. That is essential. At present there is not a proper dispute resolution procedure. In normal circumstances the chief officers and councils will work in partnership. None the less, provision needs to be made for the situation described by the noble Lord: a difference of opinion between the local chief officer and the council on key issues. In those exceptional circumstances the issue will be referred to the chief executive for resolution. Important issues that cannot be resolved in that way will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor, who must give due consideration to the recommendation of the council.
	We hope that we shall have a greater degree of clarity than there is at present as to what happens when there is a dispute. Unfortunately, at present when there is a dispute it is difficult to get resolution. We believe that this new structure will be able to solve a number of the problems with which magistrates and magistrates' courts committees currently struggle but which are difficult to deal with because there are not the necessary instruments to resolve them. We hope modestly to present them with a cure to those problems by the new structure.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The noble Baroness is as charming as ever and has shown that she is prepared to listen. We are not surprised at that but are grateful for it. She has shown that she recognises the validity of many of the concerns which we on this side of the Committee have tried to express. I wonder whether she would take another opportunity to demonstrate the same willingness to listen and to express an understanding of our concern. She said that she wants the magistrates to join the whole judicial family. I do not recognise that they feel excluded from that family at present. After all, they deal with 93 per cent of all criminal cases. They sit in the Crown Court to advise recorders and, I believe, Crown Court judges too, upon matters of sentencing. They are made much of, very properly, by visiting red judges. I do not think that they feel excluded.
	One of the reasons they feel valued and esteemed is that under our present system they are accorded a substantial measure of self-government under the magistrates' courts committees. What will happen now? We know that those committees are going and we know that the courts agency will appoint its local managers and that they will be answerable to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and will receive directions from him. What bugs some of us is that the Government have indicated some form of court advisory council involvement in the appointment of local managers. The arrangements then go on to say that this may not be practicable for initial appointments. Yet it is the initial appointments that will have quite disproportionate influence on the developing culture of these arrangements. Will the Minister think about how to overcome that matter?
	The provisions of the Bill, which set up the CACs, might come into force before the provisions for the local managers. That would enable the CACs to express an opinion on who should be appointed as an area manager, and have that opinion taken seriously into consideration. Perhaps the Minister will think about that important aspect of these arrangements.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall certainly think about that matter. It is because the magistrates have such a powerful voice in the magistrates' courts that we want that voice to be heard more widely. The noble and learned Lord will know that they are part of the system, not just for the criminal courts but also for the family and other jurisdictions. There are many problems that do not stop at the magistrates' court; they go on to be heard in county and Crown Courts. We need just as clearly to hear the magistrates' courts' voice in those courts because the magistrates deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis.
	In order to have a joined-up system we have to encourage the whole of the judiciary, which includes the magistracy, to come together so that they can listen to one another and, it is to be hoped, speak with one voice at the local level. I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the magistrates should not feel locked out; but I must say to him most respectfully that I should like to lock them in a bit further.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Because of the lateness of the hour perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I do not do proper justice to their contributions. I first put on the record that the Minister has satisfied me as regards Amendment No. 5. I shall not be returning to that matter.
	The mainstay of the argument was on this crucial matter of the courts agency. I did bear very much in mind throughout the debate the point made by my noble friend Lord Waddington that of course it is the principal statutory foundation that really is at the core of the debate. At this stage it is clear that some Members of the Committee on this side and perhaps one or two on the other side occasionally too, have a difference of view on this matter of principle, given that we are moving into uncharted waters.
	There is only one matter to which I shall refer at this late stage. The Minister has kindly said that she will look more carefully at the debate and the concerns expressed by noble Lords and whether further clarification may be achieved. I am not sure that we can overcome our difference of principle, in particular because I was concerned about the Minister's reference to the nature of consultation about guidelines.
	The Minister's definition of "consultation" is interesting. It seemed to be that, having talked to everyone, if they said something with which the Government did not agree or which was not in the Auld report, they would not accept it. The noble Baroness said they would choose Auld. I remind the Minister that the Government have not taken everything from the Auld report and put it in this Bill or indeed in the Criminal Justice Bill.
	I shall look carefully at her words today. I shall consult further with those who have advised me from the real world, perhaps outside this Chamber and I shall return with a more carefully reasoned amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.